A man ought to be as free to select his physician as his blacksmith,
for he alone is to profit or suffer by his choice. The responsibility
is his. - GLADSTONE.
The desires of the people upon most subjects of public concern
generally become crystalized in legislation. The purpose of those
urging legislative enactment should be to secure the rights of the
people, but it often is designed to protect or otherwise advance
the interests of a class. The first purpose is commendable, but
should not be invoked unless certain "inalienable rights among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are
threatened. The second should never be an end in itself, but may
be the result of the adoption of means necessary to secure the greatest
benefit to the greatest number. Another principle that should be
kept in mind in all legislation is that no power of government should
ever be used to perpetuate fraud, deception, or any form of injustice;
or to protect one interest to the sacrifice of another.
This has been the spirit in which osteopaths and the people have
asked recognition by act of our state legislatures. In almost every
state osteopaths were thrown upon the defensive. As shown in Chapter
V, the reception often given the osteopath was threatened arrest,
and, as the records show, the threats were often executed unless
the osteopath quickly surrendered his inalienable right to liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, or the people, the patients of osteopaths,
quietly surrendered their hope of relief from suffering through
osteopathic ministrations. But neither the osteopaths nor their
patients were to be intimidated by threats or turned from their
purpose by ridicule. They stood their ground, knowing that their
cause was just; and almost without exception, they have succeeded
in getting the laws they have asked for, although not without a
contest. In some states osteopaths are protected by court decisions
instead of by legislative enactment. Thus it appears that about
nine-tenths of the states and territories have established the legal
status of Osteopathy either by acts of their legislatures or by
decisions of their courts. All these victories have been won upon
merit Alone, absolutely without monetary influence. In the others,
osteopaths are not molested. In fact, there are graduates practicing
their profession in every state and territory of the union.
To one not familiar with the influences brought to bear upon members
of a legislature, both individually and collectively, it would seem
as if almost everything asked for by the osteopaths would have been
willingly granted; but, on the contrary, certain conditions existed
which rendered the desired legislation either difficult or impossible
of attainment. Foremost among the forces very naturally arrayed
against Osteopathy were the members of the medical profession, generally
acting collectively and under the guise of enforcers of the law
and protectors of the people against impostors. They sometimes tried
to wield their influence by such flagrant misrepresentations that
the result was more favorable than injurious to the cause of Osteopathy;
but generally they have used more discreet measures, such as are
employed by those who are adepts at securing the support of the
people, by appealing to their pride or prejudice, or by pleading
policy or personal interest.
For years, the medical fraternity has had almost complete control
of all matters pertaining to the practice of the healing art. Had
their concern always been for the public weal, the people should
not object to this condition of affairs. Had they not undertaken
to block advance in their art, they might have remained masters
of the situation. Had they followed any fixed principle based upon
eternal truth and undisputed facts, they would have enforced the
respect of the scientific world, and maintained their influence
with the people. As it is, all is chaos. Dr. Alexander Wilder said
in the Arena for December, 1901:
"Medical legislation as a general fact is but meddling and
muddling whenever it interferes. It cannot be intelligent, and there
fore cannot be just. For medical men seldom agree, and none of them
are experts in matters of legislation: hence, it is not possible
to obtain the requisite knowledge to legislate to any right purpose.
The legislators who vote for such enactments are little else than
dupes of those who seek them; and unfortunately medical, men have
a great pecuniary interest in disseminating exaggerated notions
about infection and other matters. If there was no pecuniary interest
involved, I do not believe that such legislation would be sought;
and, indeed, medical men in the first class in their profession
are seldom found seeking to obtain it."
Many proofs of the statements just made and the extreme measures
to which they often resort, are at hand. The following resolution,
unanimously passed by the Miami County Medical Society at Piqua,
Ohio, March 6, 1902, will serve for illustration:
"WHEREAS, There is now pending in the Ohio Legislature a bill
known as the 'Brown Bill,' to establish a board of examiners to
legalize a pretended system of curing disease by rib adjustment,
spine setting, bone pulling, nerve pressing, and pipe adjusting,
claimed to have been discovered by H. E. Still, of Baldwin, Kansas,
in 1894, known as Osteopathy,
"WHEREAS, This class of men and women are manifestly ignorant
of the first principles of a medical education and totally ignorant
of the nature, of disease, especially the class known as contagious
diseases, which require early recognition to prevent epidemics.
Be it therefore
"Resolved, That it is the sense of this Society that to legalize
this class of pretenders, thereby opening the doors of the sick
room to them, would be a serious menace to the health of the community
by scattering diseases of this class broadcast and imposing upon
the credulity of the sick. Be it further
"Resolved, That it is the consensus of opinion of this Society
that the system has no foundation based on experience or good Sense,
and therefore to be classed with the Indian Hoo-doo or Doweyite,
or Christian Science pretenders, wholly unscientific and therefore
dangerous to the commonwealth.
"Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to
our Representative and Senator with a request that they use their
influence to defeat the bill."
Comment is hardly necessary. It may justly be said that the medical
profession of Miami County, Ohio, probably had as good a chance
to know something about Osteopathy as any other in the United States.
It was in the adjoining county that Dr. Gravett was arrested in
1900. (See Chapter V.) There a relentless war was waged against
Osteopathy till the passage of the osteopathic amendment to the
medical law in April, 1942. It is, therefore, unreasonable to suppose
that they were wholly ignorant of what was being done by osteopaths
right in their midst, or of the methods or procedures by which cures
were effected. Such statements as those quoted above would excite
mirth if they did not arouse the higher feeling of pity that a noble
profession should be so willing to prostitute the truth. The last
resolution was carried out and doubtless did Osteopathy good rather
than harm by its reactionary effect.
In marked contrast with the above, the following is given as a
sample of hundreds of letters that were sent in favor of the passage
of the proposed bill, not one of which, so far as known, resorted
to abuse or misrepresentation:
"Chairman Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Columbus
"DEAR SIR, - I am informed that the Osteopathic House Bill
Number 170 is soon to be acted upon by your committee.
"That this bill may receive its just and full consideration,
I, as an advocate of this particular school of treatment, knowing
it to be a distinct and independent method of healing, respectfully
ask you to give it the recognition it deserves.
"As a beneficiary of this form of treatment, I consider myself
in a position to better judge its merits and its rights to recognition
than the misinformed who are opposing it.
"Your favorable consideration therefore would be appreciated.
Respectfully yours, …
Another favorite mode of trying to prevent osteopathic legislation
was through purely political influence. There are always a number
of medical men in legislatures, and they lead the opposition to
Osteopathy. Sometimes it is done by fair means; sometimes by foul.
But whenever, through their strength of numbers and power of controlling
votes, they can bring pressure to bear, they are not slow in doing
it. The following case is cited by way of illustration. Comment
is not necessary to make the meaning of these telegrams clear:
"Cleveland, Ohio, April 13, 1900. "Senator J. B. Foraker,
Washington, D. C.:
"Eight thousand physicians in the state of Ohio will hold
you responsible if the osteopathic bill, to be voted upon by the
State Senate at ten o'clock Saturday morning, becomes a law. (Signed)
"WM. EWERT, President; T. C. TAYLOR, Secretary;
RALPH J. WENNER, Treasurer, Physicians' Municipal League."
"Washington, D. C., April 14, 1900.
"Wm. Ewert, President; T. C. Taylor, Secretary; Ralph J. Wenner,
Treasurer, Physicians' Municipal League, Cleveland, Ohio:
"Your telegram received. I know nothing whatever about the
matter to which it refers. I was not aware that such a bill as you
mentioned was pending, much less that it was to be voted upon today.
All this I greatly regret, because, if I had been advised, I might
possibly have helped to pass it, as I would have gladly done for
the good of suffering humanity, who should somehow find release,
as I did for my son, from some dependence on such bigotry, impudence,
and plantation manners as your telegram manifests.
(Signed) "J. B. FOBAKER."
The above incidents are taken from osteopathic experience in Ohio.
They could be almost duplicated by quoting from the records in many
other states, notably Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Iowa, New York,
Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Colorado. That the State Medical Association
of West Virginia also proposes to enter the political arena is shown
by the following excerpts from a letter sent out by Dr. T. L. Barber,
President State Medical Association, dated Charleston, West Virginia,
March 17, 1904:
"I hope that every physician who gets this letter will consider
himself a committee to call upon those in his county who are seeking
nominations for the legislature, and learn how they stand on the
enactment of laws to elevate the standards of knowledge of persons
who seek to practice the healing art in this state, and secure a
flat promise to favorably consider any legislation emanating from
the State Medical Association bearing upon this matter. It is very
necessary to impress upon them the fact that the organized societies
in the state and counties are going to stand solid in the support
of candidates whom we can depend upon, and to oppose those who are
loose in their ideas and who are the suspected tools of the aforesaid
ignoramuses, charlatans, and quacks.
"The time for effectual work in which the whole profession
can take a hand is in the nominations and the elections. So I earnestly
appeal to you to be on the alert now, when nominating conventions
and primaries are being held, and then during the campaign to find
what nominees are favorable to our legislation."
Here we see the climax of "boss rule." The boss in this
case is a so-called "learned" and "noble" profession,
"learned" indeed in the methods of the "boss"
in many of our larger cities. It is gratifying to know that some
of the high medical authorities are cognizant of the character of
the medical politician and hold them in supreme contempt. American
Medicine, January 7, 1905, contained the following scathing arraignment:
"Unfortunately, many of our state boards have in their membership
men who are merely medical politicians.
"Men who are puffed up with their newly acquired importance,
and who seldom fail to act arbitrarily when they are in a position
to do so.
"Men who either could not be fair if they tried to, or who
are not by nature disposed to be fair.
"Men who, when placed in positions of authority, are not liberal,
or even decent to their fellowmen who happen to be within reach
of their power.
"Men who can not see things from the ordinary viewpoint of
humanity and liberality.
"Men who conceive it their duty, or exercise it as their pleasure
to down the competent and decent, as well as the incompetent and
indecent, when they can find any excuse for so doing.
"Men who split hairs, either knowingly or unknowingly, in
order to inflict pain or injustice.
"Men who will invariably sacrifice unfairly any other person's
interests when they fancy these interests may or do in any way conflict
with their own - no matter how remotely.
"What a train of evils may, and does, follow in the wake of
such conditions! It is bad enough when injustice occurs unavoidably."
Each system of treating diseases of the human body ought to be
able to stand upon its own merits. Place them side by side and let
results tell. Osteopathy does not fear competition. Its foundation
is secure; its results are positive. It wants no favors. Hence it
has never called upon anyone to help overthrow rival systems. There
have been three purposes in view in every contest it has waged;
namely, protection of the people in their rights, defense against
assaults by rival systems, and a demand that those professing to
practice Osteopathy show reasonable qualifications. The moment any
class of men asks protection at the expense of rivals, they acknowledge
their own weakness. The moment they use their influence to stay
progress, they become an incubus upon society. The moment they threaten
the people or their representatives with vengeance if they do not
accede to their demands, they become the foes of liberty. The moment
they lose interest in the welfare of the people, they cease to be
patriotic. The moment they throttle domestic, religious, or political
independence in a country like ours, they become traitors. Society
puts the stamp of disapproval upon all such.
Credit may be due the enemies of Osteopathy in several instances
for valuable aid in securing high standards of qualification for
Osteopathy; but their efforts were generally against Osteopathy
or in favor of a minimum of qualifications which would tend to bring
Osteopathy into disrepute. Reference need only be made to the contests
in Ohio, Alabama, and many other states, and the present law in
Illinois, with recent efforts to improve it, in proof of these points.
There is more or less similarity in all osteopathic laws as to
certain features. Nearly all of them provide for licensing graduates
of reputable schools who were practicing in the state prior to the
passage of the act; for punishing by fines - ranging from $25 to
$510, or imprisonment 10 to 90 days, or both, upon conviction of
violations of the law; for recording certificates; for organizing
state boards when provided for in the law; and for all the minor
details necessary to make the law effective.
The essential features of the laws thus far enacted are given below
by quoting the words of the statutes of the several states. Only
so much is given as pertains directly to the purposes of the laws
and shows the steps by which the present high legal standing of
the science in some of the states was reached. A study of these
quotations will also show how carefully the welfare of the people
has been safe-guarded by those who were instrumental in passing
these laws; and that osteopaths have demanded and secured a standard
of qualifications for their practitioners, hitherto unsurpassed
and in many cases unequaled by the practitioners of other schools.
It will be seen that some of the earlier statutes were crude but
they met the exigencies of the time. For example, when the first
Vermont law was passed there was but one school of Osteopathy in
existence; hence that school was mentioned.
Missouri is the birthplace of Osteopathy, hence its legal status
there has always excited unusual interest. It is not a common occurrence
for anything new to receive marked recognition at once where it
has its origin. "A prophet is not without honor save in his
own country." Osteopathy was an exception to the general rule.
As shown in Chapters I and II, Dr. Still had been going about from
place to place doing good so long that he had become well known
in many parts of his home state. His work was too successful, and
it had made too deep an impression upon the people for it to be
ignored by the general assembly when a bill was presented. The first
attempt to legalize Osteopathy was made in the Missouri General
Assembly in 1895. Notwithstanding the fact that the bill passed
both branches of the legislature, Governor Stone vetoed it. The
full text of the veto appeared in the Journal of Osteopathy for
March, 1895, and its fallacies were clearly pointed out in the same
issue. The governor did not intimate that the bill was unconstitutional
or against public morals. His principal objection was that Osteopathy
is a secret. While he offered no valid objections to the bill, the
friends of Osteopathy have rejoiced that the first bill passed by
any legislature did not become a law. It served its mission by introducing
Osteopathy to law-making bodies, and revealed to osteopaths what
would be necessary in future legislation. Governor Stone vetoed
the bill at 4.45 P. M., Saturday, March 23, 1895, and the legislature
adjourned at 8 P. M., making it impossible for further action for
The will of the people and the law-making power were not to be
thwarted by the caprice of one man, so a bill was introduced at
the next meeting of the general assembly. It passed the house February
25, 1897, by a vote of 101 to 16; the senate, March 3, 1897, by
a vote of 26 to 3; and was approved by Governor Iron V. Stephens,
March 4, 1897, at almost the minute Wm. McKinley took the oath of
office as President of the United States. Both events were prominent
in marking an "era of expansion." Governor Stephens was
assailed most unmercifully by the medical association for his approval
of the bill. In his reply to the criticism of the association he
spoke of his predecessor's veto, and then said
"The proposition then went before the people. A new legislature,
the thirty-ninth, was elected, and this bill was again introduced
and passed overwhelmingly by both branches. In the house the vote
stood 101 for the measure, 16 against, and 18 absent from the roll
call. Of the 101 voting for the bill, there were two regular physicians.
Six regular physicians voted against the bill and four regular physicians
were among those who did not vote on the measure at all. In the
senate the vote stood 26 for the bill, 3 against, and 5 absent.
The total vote for the bill was 127.
"From this it is a clear indication, in my opinion, that the
people of Missouri were for giving the friends of Osteopathy the
protection of our state laws. The science of Osteopathy, as far
as it has come under my observation, assists in relieving suffering
humanity, and I do not think I erred in signing the bill. In view
of the fact that such a majority of the General Assembly favored
it, it would more than likely, had I withheld my approval, been
passed over a veto."
Senator A. N. Seaber gives the following account of that first
defeat and the subsequent victory:
"In spite of the opposition of the ‘regulars’
and the Board of Health, the osteopathic bill was passed by an overwhelming
vote in the senate, and having passed the house previously, awaited
only the governor's signature to become a law. This was in the session
of the 38th General Assembly. The governor was an ardent politician;
the drug doctors got in their work on him; and the result was a
veto that was sent in just in the closing hours of the session,
when many of the members had gone home, thus making it impossible
to pass the bill over the veto. And so the work had to be done over.
"In the 39th General Assembly the friends of Osteopathy began
early. A new legislature with many new men had to be reasoned with
and informed upon the matter. The former governor's veto had some
weight, as quite a number of members disliked to antagonize one
who was a powerful factor in his party as well as an astute politician.
However, all obstacles were overcome, and once more the house and
senate of Missouri recorded their faith in the good old Anglo-Saxon
principle of fair play, by passing the Osteopathic bill by a decisive
majority. The new governor, having himself been benefited by osteopathic
treatment, signed it, and it became a law.
"Thus this grand old state, the cradle of Osteopathy, gave
the new science the recognition it so justly deserved."
The first legal definition of Osteopathy appeared in Section 1
of that law, and the minimum time for graduation from an osteopathic
school was established by Section 2. The law read in part as follows:
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri
“Section 1. The system, method, or science of treating diseases
of the human body, commonly known as Osteopathy, and as taught and
practiced by the American School of Osteopathy of Kirksville, Missouri,
is hereby declared not to be the practice of medicine and surgery
within the meaning of article 1, chapter 110, of the Revised Statutes
of the State of Missouri, of 1889, and not subject to the provision
of said article.
"Section 2. Any person having a diploma regularly issued by
the American School of Osteopathy, of Kirksville, Missouri, or any
other legally chartered and regularly conducted school of Osteopathy,
who shall have been in personal attendance as a student in such
school for at least four terms of not less than five months each
before graduation, shall be authorized to treat diseases of the
human body according to such system, after having filed such diploma,
etc. Provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed as prohibiting
any legally authorized practitioner of medicine or surgery in this
state from curing or relieving disease, with or without drugs, or
by any manipulation by which any disease may be cured or alleviated."
The late Dr. H. E. Patterson and Dr. A. G. Hildreth probably deserve
more credit than any others for their work in securing the passage
of this bill; but it is no discredit to them or any one else to
say that their efforts would have been futile if Osteopathy had
not already had a host of friends throughout the state in the persons
of those who had been brought back to health through the treatment
of Dr. Still and other osteopaths; and if it had not been freely
and ably championed by many of the brightest members of both houses
of the legislature, the labors of these two men in securing early
recognition would have been in vain. It is also worthy of note that
Dr. Hildreth was afterward chosen to represent his native county,
the home county of Osteopathy, in the legislature of Missouri. He
served two sessions, both of which he was a member of the Public
Health Committee, which was composed almost entirely of M. D.s.
That committee, in Dr. Hildreth's absence, recommended the present
osteopathic law. Even when the M. D.s wanted to change their own
law, they sent for him so it might be arranged satisfactory to the
osteopaths as well as the older schools of practice.
The present Missouri osteopathic law was passed and approved at
the spring session of the legislature in 1903, only five votes being
cast against it. Even the State Board of Medical Examiners recommended
the passage of the bill, showing that the feeling of animosity against
Osteopathy which had existed so long, was dying out where it was
best known; at least the active opposition did not exist. The Board
of Examiners provided for in Section 1, consists of five reputable
osteopathic physicians appointed by the governor. All applicants
for a certificate must be not less than 21 years of age and hold
a diploma. The act does not say whether Osteopathy is or is not
the practice of medicine and surgery, as stated in Section 1 of
the act of 1897, and does not exempt "any legally authorized
practitioner of medicine or surgery" from the requirements
or penalties of the act. Concerning the educational qualifications
the law says the applicant for a certificate must possess a diploma,
"Granted on personal attendance and completion of the course
of study of not less than four terms of five months each, and such
other information as the board may require. The board may, in its
discretion, subject all applicants to an examination in subjects
of anatomy, physiology, physiological chemistry, and toxicology,
osteopathic pathology, diagnosis, hygiene, obstetrics and gynecology,
minor surgery, principles and practice of Osteopathy, and such other
subjects as the board may require; provided that any person having
a diploma from a legally chartered school or college of Osteopathy,
in good standing as such at the time of issuing such diploma, and
who shall meet the requirements of the board in other respects,
who is in active practice in this state at the time of the passage
of this act, may be granted a certificate by the board to practice
Osteopathy in the state without examination and upon the payment
of a fee of one dollar to said board for said certificate; provided
further, that the board may, in its discretion, dispense with an
examination in the case, first of an osteopathic physician duly
authorized to practice Osteopathy in any other state or territory
or the District of Columbia, who presents a certificate of registration
or examination by the legally constituted board of such state, territory,
or the District of Columbia, accorded only to applicants of equal
grade with those required in Missouri."
"Section 4. Osteopathic physicians shall observe and be subject
to the state and municipal regulations relating to the control of
contagious diseases, the reporting and certifying of births and
deaths, and all matters pertaining to public health, and such reports
shall be accepted by the officer or department to whom such report
The honor of enacting the first law regulating the practice of
Osteopathy and securing the rights of the people in employing osteopathic
physicians, clearly belongs to Vermont. While a student at Kirksville,
Missouri, George J. Helmer was called to treat Mr. A. C. Mills,
a prominent clothing manufacturer of St. Louis, Missouri, and later,
in the summer of 1895, accompanied him to his summer home in Chelsea,
Vermont, that the treatment might be continued there. The citizens
of Vermont had never heard of Osteopathy; but they were inclined
to regard it favorably since it was introduced by a man of Mr. Mills's
standing. Colonel Curtis S. Emery, clerk of Orange County, and prominent
in the politics of the state, was the first to test its merits.
His little son was cured of asthma, the news of which spread through
Before leaving for Kirksville to finish the course of study, Mr.
Helmer promised to return in the summer of 1896, which he did, taking
with him as assistant Dr. Charles Corbin. Dr. Helmer expected to
treat but a few people, but as the results were permanent in the
cases treated the preceding summer, the enthusiasm of the Vermonters
seemed to know no bound, and Chelsea, although fourteen miles from
a railroad was crowded to overflowing with representative people
of that and other states.
The success of Osteopathy at Chelsea aroused the antagonism of
the local physicians, who drove in a body to Strafford, Vermont,
the home of State-Attorney Hon. Daniel Hyde, and entered two complaints.
First, that Dr. Helmer, unlicensed, was treating a large number
of weak-minded people; second, the impropriety with which he treated
ladies. An investigation immediately followed. Mr. Hyde found the
charges without foundation, and instead of "weak-minded people"
he discovered men prominent in the state and many of his own friends
receiving treatment. The people of Chelsea were thoroughly aroused;
and, wishing to show their enthusiasm for Osteopathy and disapproval
of the action taken by the medical doctors, they held a public banquet
on the north common in which nearly every citizen and all osteopathic
patients participated. In the midst of the festivities a message
was received and read from State-Attorney Hyde, in which he congratulated
the people of Chelsea for having in their community a science that
could do so much good to mankind.
At the opening of the State Legislature in September, 1896, the
medical men, having failed to check the osteopathic practice in
Chelsea, repaired to the capitol and there entered a bill, the terms
of which would exclude Osteopathy from the state. In order to be
on the ground to protect the science, Dr. Helmer moved his office
to Montpelier, September 15, and in a short time Lieutenant-Governor
Fisk, Hon. Olan Merrill, State Senator Ward, and Ex-Governor Wm.
P. Dillingham were among his patients, with the result that all
became interested in Osteopathy and readily entered the lists to
fight for it. Hon. Wm. P. Dillingham took charge of the osteopathic
affairs in the legislature and a bill was introduced to legalize
Osteopathy. The cause was championed by hundreds of Vermont's best
citizens. Among those to whom Osteopathy is most indebted for its
success are Senator Dillingham, Lieutenant-Governor Fisk, Hon. Alan
Merrill, Judge Watson, Hon. R. Harvey, Colonel C. S. Emery, Mr.
Wm. Brock, Judge Michols, Mr. J. Dennison, Mr. Louis P. Gleason,
Mr. B. Ferrin, Mr. 0. D. Tracy, and Messrs. Oscar and Herbert Cross.
The osteopathic bill was referred to the joint committee of public
health of the assembly and senate, several of whose members were
physicians of the old school. The committee refused to report it,
and the last day of the session the president of the senate called
for the osteopathic bill. The rules had been previously suspended
for the purpose of hurrying through important matters before the
session closed. When the osteopathic bill came up, it passed both
houses and was signed by Governor Grout in one hour and fifteen
minutes. Thus the first complete victory for Osteopathy was won
in the Green Mountain State, in November, 1596.
The law was as follows:
"An act relating to the practice of Osteopathy in Vermont.
"It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State
"Section 1. It shall be lawful for the graduates and holders
of diplomas from the American School of Osteopathy, at Kirksville,
Missouri, a regularly chartered school under the laws of Missouri,
to practice their art of healing in the State of Vermont."
The above bill was amended at spring session, 1903, to include
also graduates of Boston (Massachusetts) school.
In 1904, a new law was passed almost without opposition. It provides
for a state board of examiners appointed by the governor. Applicants
must be graduates of recognized schools requiring at least three
years of nine months each. An examination with a minimum grade of
seventy percent is required in anatomy, physiology, physiological
chemistry, toxicology, pathology, urinalysis, histology, neurology,
minor surgery, hygiene, medical jurisprudence, principles and practice
of Osteopathy, and such other subjects as the board may direct.
The law contains a reciprocity clause.
The third state to recognize the new practice was Michigan. In
order that no time should be lost, Senator More introduced, by title,
"a skeleton bill" to regulate the practice of Osteopathy,
because he had read an article about what had been done for Senator
Foraker's child by Osteopathy. Hon ___ Carroll, postmaster at Grand
Rapids, had been taking treatment in Chicago, and he introduced
"a skeleton bill" in the house in order that he might
get someone to give him treatment at home. The vote was as follows
Senate, yeas, 24; nays, 1; house, yeas, 72; nays, none. The bill
was approved by Governor H. S. Pingree, April 21, 1897, and took
immediate effect. Section 2 was the same at Section 1 of the Missouri
law, and Section 1 was similar to the former Section 2, with the
enumeration of three subjects studied by students of Osteopathy
"Section 1. The people of the State of Michigan enact that
any person having a diploma regularly issued by the American School
of Osteopathy, of Kirksville, Missouri, or any other legally chartered
and regularly conducted school of Osteopathy, who shall have been
in personal attendance as student of anatomy, physiology, and diseases
of the human structure, in such school, for at least four terms
of not less than five months each, before graduation, shall be authorized
to treat diseases of the human body according to such system, without
the use of medicine or surgery after having filed such diploma for
A new law was passed and received the approval of Governor Aaron
T. Bliss, May 28, 1903. It is much more rigid than the first
"Section 2. Any person before engaging in the practice of
Osteopathy in this state, shall, upon the payment of a fee of twenty-five
dollars, make application for a certificate to practice Osteopathy
to the Board of Osteopathic Registration and Examination, on a form
prescribed by the board, giving, first his name, age, which shall
not be less than twenty-one years - and residence; second, evidence
that such applicant shall have, previous to the beginning of his
course in Osteopathy, a diploma from a high school, academy, college,
or university, approved by aforesaid board; third, the date of his
diploma, and evidence that such diploma was granted on personal
attendance and completion of a course of study of not less than
three years of nine months each, and such other information as the
board may require; fourth, the name of the school or college of
Osteopathy from which he was graduated, and which shall have been
in good repute as such at the time of the issuing of his diploma,
as determined by the board. If the facts thus set forth, and to
which the applicant shall be required to make affidavit, shall meet
the requirements of the board, as laid down in its rules, then the
board shall require the applicant to submit to an examination as
to his qualifications for the practice of Osteopathy, which shall
include the subjects of anatomy, physiology, physiological chemistry,
toxicology, pathology, bacteriology, histology, neurology, physical
diagnosis, obstetrics, gynecology, minor surgery, hygiene, medical
jurisprudence, principles and practice of Osteopathy, and such other
subjects as the board may require. If such examination be passed
in a manner satisfactory to the board, then the board shall issue
its certificate granting him the right to practice Osteopathy in
the State of Michigan. Any person failing to pass such examination
may be re-examined at any regular meeting of the board within a
year from the time of such failure, without additional fee."
The law provides for issuing certificates to persons engaged in
the practice of Osteopathy in the state at the time of the passage
of the act, without examination; also for licensing osteopaths authorized
to practice in any other state or territory, or the District of
Columbia requiring equal grade with those required in Michigan,
and osteopaths who have been in practice five years, at its discretion.
The law goes into details as to the manner in which it shall be
made effective, and draws a clear line of distinction between Osteopathy
and other systems of healing, as shown by the following:
"Section 7. This system, method, or science of treating diseases
of the human body known as Osteopathy is hereby declared not to
be the practice of medicine, or surgery within the meaning of act
number 237 of the public acts of 1899 of the State of Michigan,
and not subject to the provisions of said act: Provided, that this
act shall not apply to any legally qualified medical practitioner
practicing medicine and surgery, under act number 237 of the public
acts of 1899, or acts amendatory thereto, nor shall this act apply
to masseurs or nurses practicing massage or manual Swedish movements
in this state."
North Dakota was the fourth state to recognize the practice of
Osteopathy by legislative enactment. An attempt was made to prevent
osteopaths from practicing in the state, and Mrs. Helen de Lendrecie,
of Fargo, went before the legislature single-handed and plead for
justice. As a result of her work an osteopathic bill was passed
in the senate by a vote of 22 to and in the house by 43 to 16. It
became a law July 1, 1897. It was an exact copy of the Missouri
law of March, 1897, except that section 1, given above, was omitted.
Iowa was the fifth state to drop into the osteopathic line. Adjoining
Missouri, many people in the state became interested in Osteopathy,
and it proved to be a good field for the practitioners before 1897.
But the medical law of that year was especially favorable to the
drug doctors and was worded so that it was next to impossible for
any one not licensed to administer drugs to make use of any means
whatever for the cure or alleviation of disease. Many osteopaths
were compelled to leave the state before the people arose in their
majesty and demanded their constitutional rights. As a result an
osteopathic bill was introduced at the next meeting of the legislature
and passed the senate, yeas 27, nays 20; the house, yeas 51, nays
30. It was approved March 31, 1898, by Governor L. M. Shaw. It contained
the following provisions:
"Section 1. Any person holding a diploma from a legally incorporated
and regularly conducted school of Osteopathy of good repute as such,
and wherein the course of study comprises a term of at least twenty
months or four terms of five months each, in actual attendance at
such school, and shall include instructions in the following branches,
to-wit: Anatomy, physiology, chemistry, histology, gynecology, obstetrics,
and theory and practice of Osteopathy, shall upon the presentation
of such diploma to the State Board of Medical Examiners, and satisfying
such board that they are the legal holders thereof, be granted by
such board a certificate, etc."
The State Board of Health refused to comply with these provisions
until forced to by the decisions of the courts as shown in Chapter
V. The high-handed methods pursued by the M. D.'s aroused osteopaths
and the people to renewed activity, which culminated in a law passed
at the spring session of the General Assembly of 1902, which was
promptly signed by Governor A. B, Cummins. Its most significant
provisions are as follows:
"Section 1. Any person holding a diploma from a legally incorporated
school of Osteopathy, recognized as of good standing by the Iowa
Osteopathic Association, and wherein the course of study comprises
a term of at least twenty months, or four terms of five months each,
in actual attendance at such school, and which shall include instruction
in the following branches, to-wit : Anatomy, including dissection
of a full lateral half of the cadaver, physiology, chemistry, histology,
pathology, gynecology, obstetrics, and theory of Osteopathy and
two full terms of practice of Osteopathy, shall, upon the presentation
of such diploma to the State Board of Medical Examiners and satisfying
such board that he is the legal holder thereof, be granted by such
board an examination on the branches herein named (except upon the
theory and practice of Osteopathy, until such time as there may
be appointed an osteopathic physician on the State Board of Health
and of Medical Examiners). The fee for said examination, which shall
accompany the application, shall be ten dollars, and the examination
shall be conducted in the same manner, and at the same place and
on the same date that physicians are examined, as prescribed by
section twenty-five hundred seventy-six of the code. The same general
average shall be required, as in cases of physicians.
"Section 2. The certificate provided for in the foregoing
section shall not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe or use
drugs in his practice, nor to perform major or operative surgery."
Section 5 provides for licensing itinerant osteopaths. It will
be observed that there is no independent osteopathic board, but
that the certificate is issued by the State Board of Medical Examiners
with provisions for an osteopathic physician on that board. Osteopaths
in the state at the time of the passage of the act were licensed
The sixth state to officially recognize Osteopathy was South Dakota.
A bill passed the senate by a vote of 25 to 13, and the house by
49 to 15; but it was vetoed by Governor Andrew E. Lee, March 10,
1897. Two years later a bill of the same character was passed and
received the approval of the same Governor Lee, March 8, 1899. It
"Section 1. Any person holding a diploma from a legally incorporated
and a regularly conducted school of Osteopathy of good repute as
such and wherein the course of study comprises a term of twenty
months, or four terms of five months each in actual attendance at
such school, and shall include instructions in the following branches,
to-wit: Anatomy, physiology, histology, pathology, gynecology, obstetrics,
and theory and practice of Osteopathy, shall, upon the presentation
of such diploma to the State Board of Health and satisfying such
board that they are the legal holders thereof, be granted by such
board a certificate permitting such person to practice Osteopathy
in the State of South Dakota upon payment to the said board of a
fee of ten dollars:
"Section 2. The certificate provided for in the foregoing
section shall not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe the
use of drugs in his practice nor to perform major or operative surgery."
"Section 5. The system, method, or science of treating diseases
of the human body commonly known as Osteopathy, is hereby declared
not to be the practice of medicine within the meaning of section
1.4, chapter 53, of the laws of 1885, of the Territory of Dakota,
being section 205 of the compiled laws."
Illinois was seventh to drop into line. Authority to practice Osteopathy
there is given by the law passed early in 1899, to regulate the
practice of medicine. There are three classes of practitioners of
medicine recognized by the law, viz.: (1) Medicine and surgery in
all their branches; (2) midwifery; and, (3) any other system. The
following quotations give the essential features of the law insofar
as it relates to Osteopathy, but the term Osteopathy does not appear.
"Section 2. No person shall hereafter begin the practice of
medicine or any of the branches thereof, or midwifery, in this state
without first applying for and obtaining a license from the State
Board of Health to do so. The examination of those who desire to
practice any other system or science of treating human ailments
who do not use medicines internally or externally, and who do not
practice operative surgery, shall be of a character sufficiently
strict to test their qualifications as practitioners. All examinations
provided for in this act shall be conducted under rules and regulations
prescribed by the board, which shall provide for a fair and wholly
impartial method of examination. Provided that graduates of legally
chartered medical colleges in Illinois in good standing as may be
determined by the board, may be granted certificates without examination.
"Section 3. If the applicant successfully passes his examination
or presents a diploma from a legally chartered medical college in
Illinois in good standing, the board shall issue to such applicant
a license authorizing him to practice medicine, midwifery, or other
system of treating human ailments, as the case may be Provided,
that those who are authorized to practice other systems cannot use
medicine internally or externally or perform surgical operations:
Provided, further, that only those who are authorized to practice
medicine and surgery in all their branches shall call or advertise
themselves as physicians or doctors; and provided further, that
those who are authorized to practice midwifery shall not use any
drug or medicine or attend other cases than labor."
"Section 5. The fees for examination and for a certificate
shall be as follows: Ten dollars for examination in medicine and
surgery, and five dollars for a certificate if issued. Five dollars
for an examination in midwifery, and three dollars for a certificate
if issued. For all other practitioners ten dollars for an examination
and five dollars for a certificate if issued."
The provisions for the enforcement of the law apply to osteopaths
the same as to other physicians. It will be noticed that the law
does not specify the subjects in which applicants for a license
shall be examined. The board has examined osteopaths in anatomy,
physiology, physiological chemistry, histology, pathology, and hygiene;
but not in any subject that would test the applicant's knowledge
of Osteopathy or his qualifications to engage in its practice. The
law is therefore a travesty upon justice and has been unsatisfactory
to the osteopaths and to the people.
The events connected with the adoption of the above law make one
of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of medical legislation.
A bill was agreed upon by the contending factions of the medical
profession represented respectively by the State Board of Health
and by Dr. T. A. Bland. A bogus bill was presented instead and passed
before the fraud became known. Senator B. I . Hussman said "that
the medical practice act was sneaked through the senate when everything
was being crowded in the closing hours. It was not read at large,
as the constitution of the state provides, but only by title, which
makes the act unconstitutional." Dr. Bland exposed the treachery
and fraud in Springfield and Chicago papers, and in his pamphlet
giving a history of the American Medical Union.
An attempt was made in the spring of 1903 to get a law that would
meet the requirements. It passed both houses of the legislature,
but Governor Richard Yates vetoed it. It is quite generally conceded
that Governor Yates acted upon the advice and at the earnest solicitations
of the M. D's. The following section contains the pith of the bill
vetoed. A comparison of it with the part of the law given above,
will reveal the fact so often made apparent in securing legislation
that real, practical efforts to establish a high educational standard
for Osteopathy were again defeated by those who, professedly, were
clamoring for better professional qualifications.
"Section 2a. That licenses to practice Osteopathy shall be
granted by the State Board of Health to all applicants of good moral
character who pass the regular examination of such board, in anatomy,
histology, physiology, obstetrics, gynecology, pathology, urinalysis,
toxicology, hygiene and dietetics, diagnosis, theory and practice
of Osteopathy, and present to said board a diploma from a regular
college of Osteopathy maintaining, the standard of the Associated
Colleges of Osteopathy in its requirements for matriculation and
graduation, and requiring personal attendance for at least four
terms of five months each."
The following quotation from Governor Yates's veto message contains
its salient features
"My especial reason for withholding approval from this bill,
however, is that it compels the State Board of Health to grant a
license to practice to every osteopathist who shall have been a
graduate of a regular college of Osteopathy and who shall have been
practicing in this state on the first day of March, 1903, who shall
be recommended to said board by the executive committee of the Illinois
State Osteopathic Association. This is simply another of those attempts
at law, so noticeable and so numerous at the last session, which
seek to run the entire machinery of state government by societies,
or at least, seek to subordinate the entire machinery of state government
"I am far from any intention of casting any reflections or
aspersions upon the practice of Osteopathy or the practitioners
thereof. I believe that those who pursue the practice are doing
great good, and are rapidly earning and justly earning the confidence
of the people."
As the purpose of the provision for licensing osteopaths practicing
in the state before March 1, 1903, was to avoid the enactment of
a retroactive or ex post facto law, which would be unconstitutional,
it is difficult to see the force of the governor's reasoning; and
how a recommendation by the State Osteopathic Association could
mean "to run the entire machinery of state government by societies,
etc.," is not clear. The Journal of the American Medical Association
perhaps unconsciously answers the above objection of Governor Yates
in speaking of a similar veto of the nurses' bill: "The governor
objects to this as taking from the executive his prerogative, and
we might add, political perquisites. Why otherwise he should object
to the assistance of a qualified organization in the selection of
persons for a purely professional function is a little difficult
to see from our point of view, though probably clear enough from
This all reminds one of the old fable which illustrated the difference
as to whose bull was gored. A bill was proposed by some of the osteopaths
early in 1905, which was vigorously opposed by others. It passed
the senate by a vote of 26 to 5 but was slumbering in a committee
at last account.
Tennessee became the eighth osteopathic state by the approval of
a bill which passed each house of the legislature by unanimous vote.
It is sometimes spoken of as the Friday bill, because it passed
the house Friday, April 7; the senate, Friday, April 14, and was
signed by Governor Benton McMillan, Friday, April 21, 1899. The
law was practically the same as the first Missouri law given above,
with the omission of section 1. Credit for the passage of the act
is due the osteopaths in the state and such prominent men as Ex-Governor
Robert L. Taylor, Mayor D. H. Dudley, of Nashville; C. E. Powell,
of Chattanooga, and other enthusiastic friends who had received
benefits from Osteopathy.
At the meeting of the legislature in 1901, the "regulars"
made a desperate effort to get a bill passed to repeal the osteopathic
law; but the osteopaths were present to meet all arguments and offer
reasonable amendments to the proposed law, which resulted in another
defeat for the M. D.s.
In order to raise the standard the osteopaths proposed a new law
in 1905. It is almost identical with the Missouri law of 1903, given
above. What opposition developed against the bill came from what
may be termed "political doctors," the better class of
physicians offering no objections. It passed the senate by a vote
of 20 to 6, and the house by 65 to 26. The opposition tried to influence
Governor John I. Cox to interpose in their favor with his veto,
but to no avail. He signed it April 11, 1905.
It provides for a Board of Osteopathic Examination and Registration
composed of five osteopaths appointed by the governor, has a reciprocity
clause, etc., and contains the following important clauses:
"The board shall subject all applicants to an examination
in the subjects of anatomy, physiology, symptomatology, physiological
chemistry and toxicology, osteopathic pathology, diagnosis, hygiene,
obstetrics and gynecology, minor surgery, principles and practice
of Osteopathy, and such other subjects as the board may require.
"Provided, further, that after June, 1907, no holder of a
diploma issued after said date, shall be admitted to an examination,
nor shall a certificate to practice Osteopathy be otherwise granted
by said board, to any, such person, unless said person shall have
graduated after personal attendance from an osteopathic school of
good repute, as such, determined by said board, wherein the course
of study shall consist of at least three years of nine months each.
"Section 4. Be it further enacted, that osteopathic physicians
shall observe and be subject to all state and municipal regulations
relating to the control of contagious diseases; the reporting and
certifying of births and deaths; and all matters pertaining to public
health; and such reports shall be accepted by the officer or department
to whom the same are made."
Montana came into the osteopathic ranks by act of her legislative
assembly at the spring session of 1901. The law became operative
by reason of the governor's signature, February 26, 1901. It provided
for a State Board of Osteopathic Examiners of three osteopaths to
be appointed by the governor, which board was named March 27, 1901.
The law contained the following important sections
"Section 5. All persons after March 1, 1901, commencing the
practice of Osteopathy in this state, in any of its branches, shall
apply to said board for a license to do so, and such applicant at
the time and place designated by said board, shall submit to an
examination in the following branches, to-wit: Anatomy, physiology,
chemistry, pathology, gynecology, obstetrics, and theory and practice
of Osteopathy, and such other branches as are taught in well regulated
and recognized schools of Osteopathy, and deemed advisable by said
board, and shall present evidence of having actually attended for
at least twenty months or four terms of five months each, a legally
authorized and regularly conducted school of Osteopathy, recognized
by said Board of Osteopathic Examiners. All examination papers on
subjects peculiar to Osteopathy shall be examined, and their sufficiency
passed upon by the members of said board, and said board shall cause
such examination to be scientific and practical but of sufficient
severity to test the candidate's fitness to practice Osteopathy.
"Section G. The certificate provided for in Section 5 of this
act shall not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe or use drugs
in the practice of Osteopathy, or to perform major surgery or operative
surgery; provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed
as to prohibit any legalized osteopath in this state from practicing
major or operative surgery after having passed a satisfactory examination
in surgery before the State Board of Medical Examiners in the State
"Section 11. The system, method, or science of treating diseases
of the human body commonly known as Osteopathy is hereby declared
not to be the practice of medicine or surgery within the meaning,
Amendments were made in 1905 in regard to the practice of minor
surgery, a three years' course of nine months each, the privilege
of reciprocity with other state boards, and the use of the titles
osteopath, etc. It is now one of the best laws yet passed. The amendments
met with but little opposition in the house. On account of a misunderstanding
on .the part of some of the senators, they were vigorously opposed
in the senate, but the opposition was so completely overcome that
the amended bill finally passed that body unanimously. Not only
was a positive victory gained for Osteopathy, but a negative one
also. The legislature refused to pass a bill, introduced by a drug
doctor, the purpose of which was to prevent osteopaths from treating
contagious diseases, or serving on boards of health.
The law governing the practice of Osteopathy in Kansas was approved
March 1, 1901. It mentions three kinds of practice, medicine, surgery,
and Osteopathy, and creates a board composed wholly of M. D.'s.
It requires an examination for the practice of medicine and surgery,
but not for Osteopathy; but did require, prior to April 1, 1902,
two months more study of the D. O. than of the M. D. The arbitrary
action of the board in refusing, for more than three years, to license
osteopaths locating in the state, was in keeping with the conduct
of the Iowa and Indiana boards.
The Topeka Daily Capital of February 12, 1904, said:
"The board claimed that the osteopathic colleges were not
'regular,' but Dr. C. E. Hulett, of Topeka, President of the Kansas
Association of Osteopaths, made a talk this week which convinced
the board that the colleges are entitled to recognition. Licenses
to osteopaths will issue, therefore."
The most important provisions are as follows:
"An act to create a State Board of Medical Registration and
Examination and to regulate the practice of medicine, surgery, and
Osteopathy in the State of Kansas. The members of the board shall
be physicians in good standing in their profession, and who shall
have received the degree of doctor of medicine from some reputable
medical college or university not less than six years prior to their
"Section 3. All persons intending to practice medicine, surgery,
or Osteopathy after the passage of this act, and all persons who
shall not have complied with section 2 of this act shall apply to
said board at any regular meeting or at any other time or place
designated by the board for a license. Application shall be made
in writing, and shall be accompanied by the fee hereinafter specified
together with the age and residence of the applicant, proof that
he or she is of good moral character, and satisfactory evidence
that he or she has devoted not less than three periods of six months
each, no two within the same twelve months, or if after April 1,
1902, four periods of not less than six months each, no two in the
same twelve months, to the study of medicine and surgery. All such
candidates, except as hereinafter provided, shall submit to an examination
of a character to test their qualifications as practitioners of
medicine or surgery; provided further, that and graduate of a legally
chartered school of Osteopathy wherein the requirements for the
giving of a diploma shall include a course (if instruction of not
less than four terms of five months each, in two or more separate
years, shall be given a certificate of license to practice Osteopathy
upon the presentation of such diploma; provided, further, that the
board may, in its discretion, accept in lieu of examination or diploma,
the certificate of the Board of Registration and Examination of
any other state or territory, of the United States or any foreign
country whose standards of qualification for practice are equivalent
to those of the state. All persons who practice Osteopathy shall
be registered and licensed as doctors of Osteopathy, as hereinbefore
provided, but they shall not administer drugs or medicines of any
kind nor perform operations in surgery."
California has a special law governing the practice of Osteopathy
passed at the spring session of the legislature in 1901. The vote
stood as follows: House, 46 yeas, 9 nays; senate, 23 yeas, 10 nays.
It became a law March 7, 1901, at 3.20 P. M., under the statute
of limitations without Governor Gage's signature. Owing to some
doubt as to the reckoning of time under the statute of limitations,
the bill was credited as law March 9, on the state licenses. The
board was organized April 21, 1901. It now recognizes only those
colleges that maintain a course of not less than three years of
nine months each.
The law was not secured without a struggle. The medical men had
introduced a bill which would have been absolutely prohibitive of
Osteopathy. The osteopaths, with the aid of Hon. G. L. Johnson,
so marshalled the friends of Osteopathy in the legislature that
they were able to hold up the medical bill, unless its friends would
support the osteopathic bill. Dr. Hasson, the author of the medical
bill, agreed to recommend that the osteopathic bill do pass, but
the M. D.s of the committee said they could not stultify themselves
by reporting it favorably. But the will of the legislature was not
to be thwarted by obstructionists. The law provided for licensing
those practicing in the state at the time of the passage of the
act. It contains the following important provisions:
"Section 2. The Osteopathic Association of the State of California,
incorporated under the laws of the State of California, shall appoint
a board of examiners as soon as possible after the passage of this
act, to be known as the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners. This
board shall consist of five qualified practicing resident osteopaths,
each of whom shall be a graduate of a legally authorized college
THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE AND SURGERY, CHICAGO.
"Section 4. All persons, after August 1, 1901; desiring to
commence the practice of Osteopathy in this state, shall apply to
said board for a license to do so, and such applicant at the time
and place designated by such board, or at a regular meeting of said
board, shall submit a diploma from a legally incorporated college
of Osteopathy, recognized by the board of examiners. Having complied
with the requirements of this act, said board shall grant a license
to such applicant to practice Osteopathy in the State of California,
which license shall be granted by the consent of not less than three
members of said board and attested by the seal thereof."
"Section 5. The certificate provided for in section 4 of this
act shall not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe or use drugs,
nor to perform major surgery.
"Section 9. The system, method, and science of treating diseases
of the human body commonly known as Osteopathy, is hereby declared
not to be the practice of medicine or surgery, within the meaning
of an act entitled 'An act to regulate the practice of medicine
in the State of California,' approved April 3, 1876, or any of the
acts amendatory thereof."
Osteopathic practice in Indiana is controlled by the provisions
of an act concerning the practice of medicine and surgery, and an
amendment regulating the practice of Osteopathy, passed March 4,
1905. The original act became a law March 11, 1901, without the
governor's signature. It is very long, yet is not specific as to
the scope of examinations, leaving that to the board.
The board issued certificates to those who were practicing in the
state at the time of the passage of this law, but for two years
it refused to examine osteopaths who entered the state after the
passage of the law. Its excuse for doing so was that osteopathic
colleges were not equal to recognized medical schools in the scope
and thoroughness of their teaching, and therefore no graduate in
Osteopathy was eligible to take the examinations. After the board
was convinced of its error it proceeded to license four osteopaths
in four years; only those who had matriculated prior to March 11,
1901. They were examined in physiology, anatomy, bacteriology, surgery,
chemistry, medical jurisprudence, obstetrics, dermatology, laryngology,
histology, hygiene, gynecology, otology, and ophthalmology. All
others were refused examination by the board. An attempt was made
in 1903 to pass a law providing for an osteopathic board of examiners;
but for reasons not inimical to good will towards Osteopathy it
did not pass.
The following quotations give a general idea of the most important
features of the law, especially that part of it relating to Osteopathy.
"The State Board of Medical Registration and Examination shall
from time to time establish and record in a record, kept by them
for that purpose, a schedule of the minimum requirements which must
be complied with by applicants for examination for license to practice
medicine, surgery, and obstetrics, before they shall be entitled
to receive such license. The said board shall also, in like manner,
establish and cause to be recorded in such record a schedule of
the minimum requirements and rules for the recognition of medical
colleges, so as to keep these requirements up to the average standard
of medical education in other states. Said board shall not, in the
establishment of the aforesaid schedule of requirements, discriminate
for or against any school or system of medicine, nor shall it prescribe
what system or systems or schools of medicine shall be taught in
any of the colleges, universities, or other educational institutions
of the state. The applicant shall have the right to designate, in
writing, at the time he files his application, the member of the
board who shall conduct his first examination in materia medica,
therapeutics, theory and practice of medicine, surgery, obstetrics,
The contest was resumed in 1905, Over 7,000 medical men in the
state, with the aid of their state and national organizations, were
against a handful of osteopaths. The osteopaths presented a bill
in the senate providing for an osteopathic board. This was referred
to the Committee on Public Health, composed of seven members, four
of whom were regulars. The committee reported in favor of indefinite
postponement. In spite of the adverse report, the senate, by a vote
of thirty-two to twelve, sent the bill to the printer and made it
a special order for the following Tuesday. A compromise bill was
finally adopted, and signed by Governor J. F. Hanly, March 4, 1905.
It does not say that the new member of the board shall be an osteopath,
but that is the understanding, and the governor has appointed Dr.
J. E. P. Holland to that position. The law is as follows:
"A bill for an act in regard to the State Board of Medical
Registration and Examination and concerning eligibility to examination
before the board.
"Section I. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State
of Indiana that within sixty days after this law goes into effect,
it shall be the duty of the governor to appoint an additional member
of the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination, which
board shall thereafter consist of six members; each of whom shall
serve a term of four years, and until his successor shall have been
appointed and qualified. The additional member so appointed shall
be a reputable practicing physician and a graduate of a reputable
school or college of the system by which he practices, and shall
belong to some school or system of practice other than those which
are now represented upon said board, and his successors shall in
the future always be of some school different of that of the remaining
members; Provided, that any osteopathist now practicing in and resident
of the State of Indiana, and holding a diploma from a reputable
college of Osteopathy, as determined by the State Board of Medical
Registration and Examination, shall be eligible to an examination
on proper application to the said board, and should he pass the
examination, he shall be granted a certificate for a license to
practice Osteopathy in the State of Indiana."
Nebraska entered the osteopathic ranks by the passage of a special
osteopathic law, approved April 1, 1901, at 12.23 A. M. After the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Little case (Chapter 17) the
current of public opinion set in more strongly than ever towards
Osteopathy, and it was evident that the next legislature would have
to take action. But the M. D.s were alert, and set to work to manipulate
political wires. "They even went so far," said Dr. M.
E. Donohue, "as to issue a circular letter here in Omaha asking
the doctors to do all they could to defeat certain candidates for
the legislature whom they knew to be friendly to Osteopathy, foremost
among whom was Senator Frank Ransom, who was elected by the largest
majority on his ticket, and to whose untiring efforts is largely
due the passing of our bill in the senate."
During the discussion before the senate committee, which lasted
about two hours, Dr. Crummer proposed a compromise law, requiring
all applicants for a license to take an examination. Dr. Little
promptly accepted the proposition and every osteopath present gave
his approval. Later at a meeting for consultation, Dr. Crummer announced
that the M. D.s could not unite in any action on a bill requiring
Under the law a certificate was granted by the State Board of Health
to "any person holding a diploma from a school or college of
Osteopathy in good standing," without examination. The following
were its most important provisions
"Section 2. The term school or college of Osteopathy in good
standing shall be defined as follows, to-wit:
"A legally chartered osteopathic school or college requiring
before admission to its course of study a preliminary examination
in all the common branches. It shall further require as requisite
for granting the decree of diplomate, or doctor, in Osteopathy an
actual attendance at such osteopathic school or college of at least
twenty months or four terms of five months each, its course of study
to include anatomy, physiology, physiological chemistry, toxicology,
histology, hygiene, pathology, symptomatology, physical diagnosis,
obstetrics, gynecology, medical jurisprudence, osteopathic therapeutics,
and theory and practice of Osteopathy, and especially requiring
clinical instruction in the principles and practice of Osteopathy
of not less than four hours per week in the last ten months of its
course, and having a full faculty of professors to teach the studies
of its course. The foregoing requirements shall be regularly published
in each prospectus or catalogue of such osteopathic school or college.
"Section 3. The certificate provided for in section 1, shall
not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe or use drugs in his
or her practice; nor to perform operative surgery.
"Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit
gratuitous services in case of emergency, and this act shall not
apply to physicians or surgeons regularly registered in this state
or to United States navy or army surgeons.
"Section 8. All laws, rules, and regulations now in force
in the state, or which shall hereafter be enacted, for the purpose
of regulating the reporting of contagious diseases, deaths or births,
to the proper authorities and to which the registered practitioner
of medicine is subject, shall apply equally to the registered practitioner
"Section 9. The system, method, or science of treating diseases
of the human body commonly known as Osteopathy, is hereby declared
not to be the practice of medicine, surgery, or obstetrics within
the meaning of sections 17 and 18, article 1, of chapter 55, Compiled
Statutes of Nebraska, 1899, entitled 'Medicine."'
But the M. D.'s were not content to let well enough alone. The
following from Dr. E. M. Cramb, in the April Journal of Osteopathy,
explains the situation in 1905:
"At the beginning of the present session of the legislature
at Lincoln, a bill known as House Roll No. 165, was introduced in
the House of Representatives, purporting to be an anti-Christian
Science measure. This bill was hurried through the house and the
M. D.'s hastened to announce to us that it did not affect the osteopaths
as we were given protection by previous special legislation. But
upon careful perusal and assimilation of this bill we found that
technicalities were prevalent which would have invalidated our present
license and prevented others from coming into the state. When the
bill was sent to the senate we went to work - about a half a dozen
of us, and called the senators' attention to this treacherous clause
and soon found that the senate, as a body, was nearly unanimously
with us, and its members promised to see that we had fair play.
We also called the medical lobby's attention to this section of
the bill, and they declared in very religious terms that the bill
did not affect us, but was aimed at the Christian Scientists. Nevertheless
we demanded an amendment to this bill and insisted upon it. Therefore
knowing that we were in earnest about the matter and that they would
be hopelessly defeated unless they abided by our demands, they very
graciously added the desired amendment in the medical committee,
which is made up entirely of M. D.'s and druggists."
The medical bill, as amended, passed the legislature and was vetoed
by the governor. Meantime, the osteopaths were active and secured
the passage of a bill of their own with representation on the State
Board of Health. Dr. Cramb continues:
"Some of the D. O.'s being alarmed after this bill first passed
the house and before it was amended in senate, caused the introduction
in the senate of a purely osteopathic bill which gave us the right
to practice and required an examination in certain branches before
the State Board. This bill passed the senate by the following vote,
26 yeas, no nays. It passed the house with 87 yeas and no nays,
and has been signed by the governor."
Governor Mickey, in vetoing the medical bill, said:
"Without in any degree reflecting upon the motives of the
legislature it is difficult, too, to avoid the conclusion that the
bill was conceived in a spirit of professional intolerance. As originally
introduced, the measure bore upon osteopaths with the same rigor
that it does upon Christian Scientists, and when it is recalled
that homeopaths, eclectics, and other now well recognized schools
of healing, as well as osteopaths, have had to fight their way to
existence over legal barriers raised by their professional brethren
who happened to be within the pale of the law, the suspicion may
be pardonable that there is more at issue than a consuming zeal
for the public health.
The first law relating to Osteopathy in this state was approved
May 6, 1901. It was the first in any state to provide for an osteopathic
physician upon the State Board of Medical Examiners. The law was
the result of a compromise. The osteopaths had introduced a bill
which passed the senate, but it was ascertained that it could not
pass the assembly. They then rallied their friends in the legislature
and succeeded in defeating the medical bill which would have forced
Osteopathy from the state. Then the chairman of the medical committee
suggested the propriety of a compromise.
The bill as agreed upon and passed contained the following pertaining
"There shall be added to said board an eighth member, to be
appointed by the governor within ninety days from the passage of
this act, from a list of five names to be furnished him by the Wisconsin
State Osteopathic Association, who shall be an osteopathic physician
heretofore licensed in accordance with the provisions of this section,
and who shall not in any way be connected with any osteopathic school.
Said board shall grant license to practice Osteopathy to all applicants
of good moral character who pass the regular examination of such
board in anatomy, histology, physiology, obstetrics, gynecology,
pathology, urinalysis, toxicology, hygiene and dietetics, diagnosis,
theory and practice of Osteopathy, and present to said board a diploma
from a regularly conducted college of Osteopathy maintaining the
standard of the Associated Colleges of Osteopathy in its requirements
for matriculation and graduation and requiring personal attendance
for at least four terms of five months each. Provided, further,
that the osteopathic schools to be recognized by the board, shall
after September, 1903, maintain the same standard as to elementary
education and time of study before graduation, as is required of
medical colleges by this act. Graduates of such osteopathic schools
shall be entitled to take the full examination of said board, which
shall, if it find the applicant qualified, grant a license to said
applicant to practice medicine and surgery in this state."
By consent of all interested parties a new law was enacted and
was approved by Governor R. M. LaFollette, May 22, 1903. All agreed
that the old law ought to be revised, and Dr. Curreus, the president
of the medical board, took the steps necessary towards framing a
suitable bill satisfactory to all schools. Thus all differences
were adjusted and no real contest took place in the legislature.
The new law contains important features not hitherto incorporated
in osteopathic laws. Here are its most important provisions:
"Section 1. The governor shall appoint a board of medical
examiners to be known as the Wisconsin State Board of Medical Examiners,
consisting of eight members. Such appointments shall be made from
separate lists presented to him every second year, one list of ten
names presented by the Wisconsin State Medical Society, one list
of ten names presented by the Homeopathic Medical Society of the
State of Wisconsin, one list of ten names of the Wisconsin State
Eclectic Medical Society, and one list of five names of the Wisconsin
State Osteopathic Association. Three members of said board shall
be allopathic, two shall be homeopathic, two eclectic, and one osteopathic,
and all shall be licentiates of said board and no member shall serve
for more than two consecutive terms
"Section 3. A preliminary education [is required] equivalent
to that necessary for entrance to the junior class of an accredited
high school in this state, including a one year's course in Latin,
or qualifications equal to those adopted by the Association of American
Medical Colleges, and that shall after the year 1906 require for
admission to such school a preliminary education equivalent to graduation
from an accredited high school of this state, or qualifcations equal
to those adopted by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
"'If the applicant be an osteopath he or she shall present
a diploma from a regularly conducted college of Osteopathy maintaining
a standard in all respects equal to that hereby imposed on medical
colleges as to preliminary education, said college after 1904 to
give three courses of eight months each, no two courses to be given
in any one twelve months, and after the year 1909 such college shall
give four courses of seven months each, as hereinbefore provided
for medical colleges, and shall pass the regular examination of
such board in anatomy, histology, physiology, obstetrics, gynecology,
pathology urinalysis, chemistry, toxicology, dietetics, physical
and general diagnosis, hygiene, and theory and practice of Osteopathy.
The examination in materia medica, therapeutics, and practice shall
be conducted by members of the board representing the school of
practice, which the applicant claims or intends to follow.
"Osteopaths, when so licensed, shall have the same rights
and be subject to the same laws and regulations as practitioners
of medicine and surgery, but shall not have the right to give or
prescribe drugs or to perform surgical operations.
"Any practitioner of medicine or Osteopathy holding a certificate
from any other state board imposing requirements equal to those
established by the board provided for herein, may,
on presentation of the same with a diploma from a reputable medical
or osteopathic college, be admitted to practice within this state
without an examination, at the discretion of the board, on the payment
of the fee fixed by the board, not exceeding the sum of $25.
"Section 6. Every person shall be regarded as practicing medicine
or Osteopathy within the meaning of this act, who shall append to
his or her name the letters ‘M. D.,’ ‘M. B.,’
or ‘D. O.,’ Doctor, Dr., or any other letters or designation
with intent to represent that he or she is a physician, surgeon,
or osteopathist, or who shall for a fee prescribe drugs or other
medical or surgical treatment or osteopathic manipulation for the
cure or relief of any wound, fracture, bodily injury, infirmity,
or disease; provided, however, that nothing in this act contained
shall be construed to apply to any dentist engaged in the practice
of his or her profession."
Texas has no law governing Osteopathy, but the medical law contains
the clause, "osteopaths are exempt from the provisions of this
act." By implication, at least, osteopaths have a right to
practice their profession without let or hinderance. Three unsuccessful
attempts have been made to pass an amendment to the law which would
repeal the clause under which osteopaths have a right to practice.
The osteopaths have also asked for an amendment giving them a separate
examining board and confining the practice to those duly qualified,
but they have not been successful in securing it. Each time the
M. D's showed their opposition to a high standard of qualification
for osteopathic physicians.
The latest contest was early in 1965. The osteopaths proposed a
law providing for an independent board of five osteopathic examiners
to be appointed by the governor. It would have restricted the practice
to graduates of reputable schools, and also required applicants
to pass an examination in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, toxicology,
histology, neurology, pathology, diagnosis, hygiene, obstetrics,
gynecology, surgery, principles and practice of Osteopathy, and
dietetics. A reciprocity clause was inserted. The bill passed the
senate February 5, 1905, but by the usual delay tactics the house
failed to reach it on the calendar before adjournment, April 15,
1905. The general result was a drawn battle, after much good work
on the part of the osteopaths in educating the people upon the subject.
The most effective weapon used by the 6,000 M. D.'s was the Judge
Toney decision, which was overthrown five years before. Hence the
contest was mainly between antiquated falsehood and everlasting
truth, with public sentiment decidedly in favor of the latter.
Connecticut also has a special osteopathic law. It was secured
with comparatively little opposition. It passed the senate without
a dissenting vote and the house by a large majority; and received
the governor's approval June 17, 1901, the one hundred and twenty-sixth
anniversary of the battle of Bunker Hill. Its salient features are
"Section 1. The governor shall appoint on or before the first
day of July, 1901, and biennially thereafter, three persons who
shall constitute a State Board of Osteopathic Registration and Examination.
"Section 2. The members of said board shall be resident osteopathic
physicians of good standing in their profession and graduates of
legally chartered colleges of Osteopathy,
"Section 9. All applications for such license shall be in
writing and signed by the applicant, upon blanks furnished by the
said board, setting forth such facts concerning the applicant as
said board shall require, and no license shall be granted to any
person unless he shall have received a certificate of graduation
from some reputable college of Osteopathy, duly recognized by the
laws of the state wherein the same is situated, or unless he shall
have spent as pupil or assistant at least two years under the instruction
and direction of some reputable practitioners of Osteopathy, or
unless he shall have been actually engaged in the practice of Osteopathy
in this state at the time of the passage of this act.
"Section 11. Any person who, subsequent to the passage of
this act, shall desire to commence the practice of Osteopathy in
this state, shall make application to the board as provided in section
9 of this act. Upon the receipt of such application, the said board
shall require the applicant to submit to an examination as to his
qualifications for such practice, which examination shall include
the subjects of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and the principles
and practice of Osteopathy. If such examination shall be passed
to the satisfaction of the board, the board shall issue its license
to the said applicant. A license, however, may be granted without
such examination to any person who has been in active and continuous
practice of Osteopathy for three successive years in any other state,
who shall satisfy the board as to his fitness to engage in such
"Section 15. The license provided for in section 8 of this
act shall not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe or use drugs
in his practice, nor to perform surgical operations. Osteopathic
physicians shall be subject to the same rules and regulations that
govern other physicians in the making and filing of certificates
of death, in the control of contagious diseases, and other matters
pertaining to public health."
The following account of the legal battles in Ohio is taken, with
a few slight changes, from an article prepared by Drs. H. H. Gravett,
President, and M. F. Hulett, Secretary, of the Ohio Osteopathic
Society, in May, 1900. It was published by the society and distributed
quite extensively throughout the state. The opponents, as well as
the advocates of Osteopathy, had every opportunity to read it and
disprove its statements. It stands as an authoritative account of
one of the most vigorous fights yet waged against Osteopathy, yet
one in which Osteopathy vindicated itself in every particular. The
history of the contest in Ohio is given more attention than in other
states, not because Ohio osteopaths deserve more credit than others,
but because the contest is typical of what has occurred in more
than thirty states.
"There was introduced in the forepart of the session of the
General Assembly [19001 what is known as the Dr. Love Medical Bill,
to amend the medical practice act of the state. In this bill the
definition of the practice of medicine was changed, with the very
evident intention of getting a statute which would bar the osteopath,
to read as follows:
"Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine or surgery
or midwifery within the meaning of this act who shall use the words
or letters 'Professor,' 'Dr.,' 'Doctor,' 'M. D.,' MM. B.,' or any
other title in connection with his name, or who shall recommend
for a fee for like use any drug or medicine, appliance, application,
operation, or treatment of whatever nature, for the cure of disease.
"In this bill were conditions with which the osteopath could
not comply, because involving matters wholly foreign and irrelevant
to his system - a diploma from a reputable medical college in good
standing as defined by the board, and required examinations in materia
medica, medical therapeutics, etc. So it was evident, taking into
consideration the above facts, as well as the conditions cited in
the law, that it was the purpose of the framers of this bill to
prohibit the practice of Osteopathy. In fact, not only is such an
inference justifiable, but definite statements of this kind were
repeatedly made by those high in authority among the medical men.
"Previous to the time of the introduction of the Love Bill,
it had been the intention of the osteopaths to remain inactive as
far as legislative matters were concerned, feeling that they were
not yet strong enough in the state to obtain special legal recognition.
But since the Love Bill would exclude them if it became a law, it
was necessary to make some kind of a demand for their own preservation.
A measure was therefore drafted similar in general to the laws enacted
in several of the other states that would regulate the practice
and make it independent of the medical law. Before this measure
was presented, however, an effort was made to obtain such amendment
to the Love Bill as would give them equal rights with other schools
of practice. Or, failing in this, to simply ask for exemption from
the provisions of the bill, as dentists are exempted. These requests
were made to the medical committee of the house - a committee composed
entirely of medical men - but were received with frigid refusal.
It was stated by them that the propositions were not deemed worthy
of any consideration whatever, and that it seemed to be the desire
of the 8,000 physicians of the state that Osteopathy be shut out.
This is the substance of an expression made by Dr. Love, Chairman
of the House Medical Committee, and reputed author of the bill,
and his position was evidently endorsed by physicians generally,
judging from their activity against the osteopathic measure.
"Failing in this - just what was expected, judging from previous
treatment, both in this state and in others - the osteopathic measure
was introduced in the house. In due time it was referred to the
Judiciary Committee. On the 20th of March, 1900, that committee,
by a unanimous vote - eight of the eleven members being present
- recommended it for passage.
"When the Love Medical Bill came up for final disposition
in the house, on the argument that the Supreme Court had declared
that the practice of Osteopathy was not the practice of medicine,
and that the osteopaths would be provided for in their own bill,
it was passed by a vote of 67 to 36.
"In the Senate Medical Committee there were several friends
of Osteopathy, and much argument was raised as to what effect the
medical bill would have on the practice of that method of treatment.
Dr. Love made a strong plea for the bill without amendment. He stated
that there was pending in the house an osteopathic measure which
would give the osteopaths their rights, and that 'it had no opposition,'
and he saw no reason why Osteopathy should be tangled up with his
bill. Upon this understanding his bill was reported out without
"On Thursday, April 12th, about five o'clock in the evening,
in the closing days of the session, when business was rushed through
without that careful attention that should guard all law-making
bodies, the bill came up for final passage. The friends of Osteopathy,
fearing that the osteopathic bill might be delayed and therefore
fail to become a law - there being only two more days in the session
- still insisted upon the exemption amendment. And the medical men
saw that the osteopaths had the strength to carry their point, if
they were forced to it by a continual refusal of any recognition.
Seeing defeat for their bill unless made to accord with the demands
to exempt the osteopaths as it does the dentists - who have a separate
law - the friends of the measure resorted to their old ally, misrepresentation.
The president and secretary of the State Board of Medical Registration
and Examination were called into service, together with whatever
other help from the local force could be hastily summoned, the result
of which was the drafting of an amendment in its provisions as follows:
"This act shall not apply to any osteopath who holds a diploma
from a legally chartered and regularly conducted school of Osteopathy
in good standing as such, wherein the course of instruction requires
at least four terms of five months each in four separate years.
Providing that the said osteopath shall pass an examination satisfactory
to the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination in the
following subjects: Anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physical diagnosis;
provided, that said osteopath shall not be granted the privilege
of administering drugs nor of performing major or operative surgery.
"This amendment was then presented with the implied explanation
that it was agreeable to both the osteopaths and the medical men
as a compromise measure (but no osteopath ever saw the amendment
until after it had been voted upon), and upon such representation
it passed with practically no opposition.
"The osteopathic measure carne up for final vote in the house
a few hours after the passage of the medical bill in the senate.
Notwithstanding their previously reiterated statements that they
were not opposing it, a strong effort was now made by the medical
men to have the bill withdrawn on account of the amendment which
had been made to their bill. But the friends of Osteopathy, seeing
the evident deception and injustice in that amendment, and the means
by which it was brought into existence, stood firmly for a fair
consideration. It was the evening session, at which there was never
a full attendance. It was hazardous at such times to attempt to
pass a bill of general interest, unless no opposition appeared.
But as only two more working days of the session remained, the friends
of the measure took the risk. The vote stood sixty to three - three
physicians being present. The bill was messaged over to the senate
that night and placed on the calendar for next day's second reading.
"Fearing that the chairman of the medical committee of the
senate - who had shown more adverse feeling toward the bill - would
attempt to delay it if sent to his committee, it was decided to
have it referred to a committee of one to expedite its passage.
This particular one had been a staunch friend of Osteopathy from
the beginning of the session. His wife had some time before received
osteopathic treatment with gratifying results, and was an enthusiast.
The friends of the measure were confident that no influence could
turn him. But in this they were mistaken.
"The corrupting and intimidating power behind public servants
was here well illustrated. Being an ardent supporter of Osteopathy,
our friend incurred the wrath of the medical lobbyists. Bringing
to bear all the argument and abuse at their command, and finding
him firm, they resorted to the baser and more effective persuasion
known only to corrupt politicians. Learning that he was a candidate
for congress, and that two of the delegates to the nominating convention
from his home district were physicians and one of them a relative
- it is reported that they were immediately sent for. The senator
was then given to understand that he must drop the osteopathic bill
or they would 'knife' him in the convention. With this powerful
whip held over him he weakened, and the bill was quietly passed
over to the chairman of the medical committee, where the opposition
thought it would be put to sleep, the sleep that knows no waking.
To this may be attributed our defeat, as the bill was thereby delayed
at least twenty-four hours.
"Hearing of this piece of treachery, the friends of Osteopathy
became indignant, and, upon demand by motion, the committee was
relieved of further consideration of the bill. An attempt was then
made to have an immediate hearing; but as a two-thirds vote was
required to take it out of its regular order, it could not be done.
So it was of necessity placed on the calendar to wait its turn.
This was on Saturday afternoon, April 14, 1904; and as the following
Monday at noon was the time set for adjournment, it could not be
"One of the characteristics of the campaign throughout, from
the side of the osteopaths, was their indifference to the passage
of a medical bill to regulate the practice of medicine, realizing
that they were not the ones to judge of the required qualifications
of applicants to practice that branch of therapeutics. Indeed, they
heartily concur in the wisdom of requiring that the man who administers
dangerous poisons shall be thoroughly conversant with their nature
and effects. The only reason for their opposition was that in their
judgment the bill would interfere with the practice of Osteopathy.
Whatever other grounds of opposition there may have been to the
bill, these features were not entered into, because they had no
desire to oppose the elevation of the medical standard.
"We notice on the other hand, that the medical men made prominent
so long as their bill was pending and when talking with the friends
of Osteopathy, that the osteopathic measure would give the osteopaths
all they needed. Dr. Love, in his argument in favor of his bill
in the house, when an osteopathic exemption amendment was pending,
made the statement that 'the osteopaths had a bill of their own;
let them stand on their own merits.' Later, in the senate committee,
he held that the osteopathic bill had no opposition in the house,
therefore he hoped the committee would not attach the osteopathic
amendment. But after the passage of their measure, a great change
seemed to come over the medical men. They threw off their mask of
lofty indifference and grudging tolerance toward Osteopathy and
revealed the real animus which was prompting their efforts, and
swooped down upon the senate with all the intrigue and political
power they possessed, or could obtain by misrepresentation, to defeat
"It was to the vigorous and continued support of its friends
that the measure of success that was attained, was due. With less
than half a hundred osteopaths in the state, without political affiliations
or influence of any kind, Osteopathy could have hoped for nothing
at the hands of the legislature had it not been for the imperative
demand for its recognition on the part of a multitude of Ohio's
best citizens who had seen and realized the good following its practice.
"It will no doubt be a source of gratification to all friends
to know that the campaign of the osteopaths in the legislature was
a clean one, from beginning to end. There was absolutely nothing
in their relations with the legislature that would be, in any way,
a cause of reproach to them, or that would give them reason to feel
that their recommendation or endorsement of Osteopathy had been
unworthily or improperly used. Osteopaths do not exploit their 'professional
ethics' of a certain kind so prominently as does the medical profession,
but in all the history of their relation with legislatures, in nearly
one-half the states of the Union, there yet remains to be recorded
against them the first departure from the highest standard of ethics,
of honesty and integrity, and the representatives of the profession
in Ohio do not want to he guilty of beginning such a record, or
of abusing the confidence of its friends and supporters by any course
that would be unworthy of them."
No osteopath applied for license under the Love law, and the State
Board of Medical Examination and Registration undertook to enforce
it. An account of the Gravett case is given in Chapter V. As no
question is settled till it is settled right, the contest was renewed
in the General Assembly in 1902. This time the osteopaths took the
aggressive. They prepared a bill similar to those enacted in many
other states, which was presented early in the session. It met with
vigorous opposition; but it was evident that all the objections
to it had their origin in the fertile brains of a few members of
the medical fraternity. The resolutions on page 97 are referred
to as evidence of this fact. These were printed and at opportune
moments placed upon the desk of each member of the General Assembly,
and otherwise given a wide distribution.
But this was not all. The same tactics used in 1900 were resorted
to again to defeat the osteopaths, and the will of the people. On
one occasion the M. D.'s secured a time for a hearing of arguments
before the Judiciary Committee of the house, which had harge of
the osteopathic bill, without letting the osteopaths know of their
intentions. About forty of the ablest doctors of the state constituted
the committee to represent the opposition to Osteopathy on that
occasion. Among its members were Dr. C. A. L. Reed, ex-President
American Medical Association; Dr. Charles Walton, ex-President Homeopathic
Association; and Dr. David Williams, ex-President American Eclectic
Association. The committee presented its claims in an able manner.
It was given all the time it wanted. Drs. Hildreth and M. F. Hulett
having heard of the intended meeting about an hourr before the time
for assembling were present, and ably presented the osteopathic
side of the question in the few minutes allotted them. Later the
osteopaths were given a brief hearing.
Those familiar with the facts could hardly help pitying the members
of the Judiciary Committee. They were evidently harassed by the
importunities of both sides. The demands of the doctors could not
be ignored, and the wishes of the osteopaths could not be slighted.
So by excuses and dilatory tactics the bill was never reported.
Then came the supreme moment. The osteopaths proposed an amendment
to the medical law instead of the one passed in 1900, given above.
It practically accepted all that had been embodied in the former
bill, and demanded a great deal more, in fact, all the essentials
asked for in the proposed osteopathic bill. The following quotations
contain the salient points in the law as it now stands. It passed
the house unanimously, encountered only three dissenting votes in
the senate, and became a law April 21, 1902
"This act shall not apply to any osteopath who shall pass
examination in the subjects of anatomy, physiology, obstetrics,
and physical diagnosis in the same manner as is required of other
applicants before the State Board of Medical Registration and examination,
and who has thereupon received a certificate from the board, which,
when filed with the probate judge, as is required in the case of
other certificates from the board, shall authorize the holder thereof
to practice Osteopathy in the State of Ohio, but shall not permit
him to administer drugs nor to perform major surgery. Provided,
that all applicants to practice Osteopathy shall, before being admitted
to examination before the State Board of Medical Registration and
Examination, file with the board, accompanied with a fee of twenty-five
dollars, evidence of preliminary education as required by section
4403c, and a certificate from the osteopathic examining committee
as hereinafter provided, showing: First, that he holds a diploma
or a physician's osteopathic certificate from a reputable college
of Osteopathy as determined by this committee; second, that he has
passed examination in a manner satisfactory to the committee in
the subjects of pathology, physiological chemistry, gynecology,
minor surgery, osteopathic diagnosis, principles and practice of
Osteopathy. The State Board of Medical Registration and Examination
shall within thirty days after the passage of this act, appoint,
upon recommendation of the Ohio Osteopathic Society, three persons,
one for one year, one for two years, and one for three years, and
their successors to be appointed for three years each, who Shall
constitute the osteopathic examining committee. Each person so appointed
shall file with the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination
a certificate of the Ohio Osteopathic Society, a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, setting
forth that the person named in the certificate is a graduate of
a reputable college of Osteopathy; that he has been engaged in the
practice of Osteopathy in the State of Ohio for at least one year;
that he is of good moral character and that he is in good standing
in his profession."
The clause in section 4403c relating to the preliminary education
required of all applicants to practice the healing art in Ohio is
"The applicant shall file with the secretary of the board
a written application on a form prescribed by the board, verified
by oath, and furnish satisfactory proof that he is more than twenty-one
years of age, and is of good moral character. In the application,
as a condition of admission to the examination, he shall produce
either of the following credentials: a diploma from a reputable
college granting the degree A. B., B. S., or equivalent degree;
a diploma from a normal school, high school, or seminary, legally
constituted, issued after four years of study; a teacher's permanent
or life certificate; a medical student's certificate issued upon
examination by any state board; a student's certificate of examination
for admission to the freshman class of a reputable literary or scientific
college; or a certificate of his having passed an examination conducted
under the direction of the State Board of Medical Registration and
Examination by certified examiners, none of whom shall be either
directly or indirectly connected with a medical college; said examination
to be held simultaneously in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and
Toledo, and the questions submitted to be uniform at such places,"
While the above preliminary qualifications seem to be rather formidable,
it will be seen that they are really no higher than the lowest requirement
for admission to the freshman class of any reputable literary or
scientific college, and as low as the lowest requirement "upon
examination by any state board." The proposed independent osteopathic
bill was more rigid, showing that the lower standard was secured
by the M. D.'s and not by the D. O.'s.
The work for legislative action began in Minnesota in 1899. At
that time there were not over thirty practitioners in the state,
but their work had rapidly turned the attention of the people to
the new science. The fact that there were so few osteopaths in the
state, and that they were not united, was the most potent cause
of failure in legislation at that time. A second attempt was made
in 1901. Meantime the opposition had not been idle, and Osteopathy
had been growing in popular favor. When the issue was made before
the legislature the situation was peculiar. Dr. G. L. Huntington
describes it in the following words:
"In both the first and second efforts we encountered a character
of opposition which, to my knowledge, has never been duplicated
in nearly all appeals to legislative bodies in other states the
osteopathic argument has been opposed with open hostility to the
science. Not so in Minnesota. Our opponents posed as our friends.
Osteopathy was spoken of in terms of the highest praise by our
most ardent haters."
The result was a drawn battle and action on both the medical and
the osteopathic bills was indefinitely postponed. Early in 1903,
the subject came up for the third time. The State Osteopathic Association
at its meeting in October had decided upon action and appointed
a legislative committee composed of Drs. -Young, Pickler, Gerrish,
Camp, Bottenleld, Bemis, and Upton. Public sentiment had been aroused
and public opinion enlightened by the agitations of the last four
years. Final and conclusive action was hastened by the conduct of
the medical profession in the Young diphtheria case (pages 171-3).
Able champions for both sides entered the contest and the medical
men succeeded in holding the bill in the health committee a long
time, from which it was returned to the house without any report.
This threw the fight directly into the house, and when the vote
was taken 04 were recorded for and 38 against the bill. The senate
was too favorable to Osteopathy to permit dilatory tactics, and
an early vote showed 34 for and 16 against it. It was approved by
Governor S. R. Van Sant, April 21, 1903.
The passage of the bill called forth the following passionate lament
from Dr. Andrews, President of the State Medical Society, in his
"We now approach a subject with shame and disgust, not for
the medical profession, but for the State of Minnesota. The osteopathic
bill is rank class legislation, and it passed both houses and was
signed by the governor. It is a great calamity and a blot upon the
fair name of the state."
The following are the important features of the bill;
"Section 2. Any person engaged in the practice of Osteopathy
in this state prior to March 1, 1903, shall within sixty days from
the passage of this act, make application to the Board of Osteopathic
Examiners and Registration for a license to practice, and shall
exhibit to said board a diploma issued by a legally incorporated
and regularly conducted school of Osteopathy, and such applicant
shall pass an examination in the following branches, to-wit: Anatomy,
physiology, urinalysis, symptomatology, pathology, gynecology, obstetrics,
chemistry, toxicology, minor surgery, hygiene, dietetics, diagnosis,
and theory and practice of Osteopathy.
"Section 3. Any person desiring to commence the practice of
Osteopathy in the State of Minnesota after March 1, 1903, shall
make a written application to the secretary of said board for a
license, and appear at its first regular meeting thereafter. The
applicant shall furnish evidence of having attended not less than
four full courses of five months each at a legally incorporated
school or college of Osteopathy, recognized by the board, and wherein
the curriculum of study shall include instruction of the following
branches, to-wit: Anatomy, histology, physiology, pathology, gynecology,
obstetrics, chemistry, including urinalysis, minor surgery, hygiene,
dietetics, diagnosis, and theory and practice of Osteopathy, and
upon passing an examination in these studies satisfactory to a majority
of the board, shall be granted a license to practice Osteopathy
in this state.
"Provided that holders of diplomas or certificates issued
after September 1, 1905, shall furnish evidence of having attended
not less than three full courses of eight months each, no two of
which shall be given in any one year; and provided, further, that
such examination may be waived as to any person or persons who have
duly graduated from and hold a diploma from any legally incorporated
school, or college of Osteopathy recognized by said board having
the curriculum of study herein specified, and who have duly practiced
their profession in some other state or territory for a period of
not less than two years preceding the date of their application.
"Section 5. The license provided for by this act shall not
authorize the holder thereof to give or prescribe drugs for internal
use nor to perform major surgery, Osteopathic physicians shall be
subject to the same rules and regulations, both municipal and state,
that govern other physicians in the control of contagious diseases,
and shall be entitled to all privileges of other physicians in matters
pertaining to public health.
"Section 8. The science of treating diseases, known as Osteopathy,
is hereby declared not to be the practice of medicine or surgery,
within the meaning of existing medical laws of the state."
The legislative contest in Georgia was short but indecisive. Dr.
R. O. Hardin went to Atlanta in April, 1899, to practice Osteopathy.
Its favorable reception by the people induced him to assume the
aggressive. Accordingly a bill was introduced in the senate December
4, 1899. Every inch of the ground was contested by the M. D.'s in
the committees to which it was referred in both houses. Notwithstanding
the strenuous opposition, it passed the senate by a vote of 26 to
5, and the house by 102 to 19. The doctors then appealed to the
governor to veto it. Telegrams and letters poured in from all over
the state, till, as he said, his desk was two feet high with them.
Delegations of doctors waited upon the governor and urged him to
veto the bill. The array of professional opposition was more than
he could withstand, so he vetoed the bill contrary to the wish of
After the defeat of the M. D.'s in the Shackelford-Fout case, the
Medical Society of Virginia undertook to accomplish its desire by
legislation in the spring of 1902. Accordingly their attorney prepared
a very carefully worded amendment to the medical law, which, if
it had passed, would have effectually barred Osteopathy from the
state. The proposed amendment was as follows:
"Any person shall be regarded as practicing as a physician
or surgeon, within the meaning of this section, who shall profess
publicly to be a physician or surgeon and shall offer for practice
as such, or who shall prescribe for the sick, or those needing medical
aid, or who shall in any way practice the art of healing human disease
or infirmities, whether any drug or medicine is administered or
not, and who shall receive therefore money or other compensation
directly or indirectly."
When an opportunity was given for a hearing before the committee
to which it had been referred some of the ablest men of the state
argued the question pro and con. It was during the hearing before
this committee that the late Dr. H. E. Patterson appeared on behalf
of Osteopathy. He was more than a match for his opponents, according
to a Richmond daily paper, and was a perfect "live wire,"
as one of the committee remarked. The committee recommended by a
vote of 7 to 1, "that it do not pass." Notwithstanding
the adverse report of the committee, a strong lobby was kept at
the capitol working for the passage of the bill. Another amendment
was also proposed, action upon which the committee postponed indefinitely,
thus effectually ending all action for that session. The osteopaths
had prepared a bill creating an examining board of osteopaths, but
it was decided that it would be better to wait for a year or two
and the bill was withdrawn. Thus ended, in defeat, the second attempt
of the medical doctors to bar Osteopathy out of the state.
In April, 1903, a new medical law was passed which was amended
by the friends of Osteopathy so as to exempt osteopaths practicing
in the state before January 1, 1943, from the examination; all other
osteopaths must pass the regular medical examination excepting in
materia medica. In June, 1904, the Medical Examining Board examined
applicants in the following subjects: Chemistry, anatomy, practice,
surgery, therapeutics, obstetrics, gynecology, physiology, histology,
pathology, bacteriology, hygiene, medical jurisprudence.
The fight for osteopathic recognition in Alabama has been one of
the most vigorous yet waged. It began by the passage of an autocratic
medical bill by the house of representatives, February 9, 1901.
It was evident that the chief purpose of that bill was to drive
osteopaths from the state. An M. D. was heard to say that they "had
the osteopaths about fixed," and another, showing his ignorance
of what Osteopathy is, said, "Well, the days of faith cure
in Mobil are about numbered." The movement in favor of the
proposed medical bill was so quiet, that the osteopaths hardly knew
what was being done till after it passed the house. Then such a
storm of opposition to the bill gathered under the leadership of
Dr. Ellen Barrett Ligon, who addressed the senate on the subject,
that it was killed in the senate, only one vote being recorded in
A bill providing for an independent board of osteopathic examiners
was introduced into the house January 21, 1903. It was referred
to the Judiciary Committee. Before it was acted upon by the committee,
the osteopaths saw that it would be impossible to get a favorable
report upon the bill, and prepared a substitute which provided for
the examination of osteopaths by the medical board to which was
to be added one osteopath, who should examine osteopathic candidates
on obstetrics, gynecology, and osteopathic principles and diagnosis.
The committee reported the substitute favorably and it passed the
house February 5, by a vote of 70 to 5. The bill then went to senate
and was referred by the president, an M. D., to the Public Health
Committee, consisting of seven members, six of whom were known to
be hostile to Osteopathy. The friends of Osteopathy promptly asked
that it be given to the Committee on Constitutional Amendments.
That was done by a two-thirds vote, showing the real strength of
Osteopathy in the senate. That committee submitted a majority report
favoring the osteopathic bill and a minority report favoring a substitute
which would leave the law practically as it them stood.
Then came the cry of the drug doctors that the proposed law would
lower the standard. Just how an examination by a medical board of
all applicants, including osteopaths, in the same subjects, and
of osteopaths in four special subjects, would lower the standard,
does not appear clear. There are said to be 1,800 M. D.'s in the
state, and most of them, practically all, it is claimed, either
went to the capitol or wrote their senator and representatives urging
the defeat of the bill. The opposition also worked upon the credulity
of the people in a most shameless manner. They informed the common
people that the passage of the bill would result in the state's
being overrun with yellow fever. How the presence of a few osteopaths
would set free all the mosquitoes of that flowery state and load
them with an unusual supply of yellow fever microbes is scarcely
apparent. But the agitation had the desired effect, for it won over
to the medical side, when the vote was taken, a few friends of Osteopathy,
and the result, on February 19, was a tie in the senate. Of course,
the president of the senate cast his rote against the osteopaths,
and thus the bill was defeated by the smallest possible margin.
The battle was continued in September, 1903. The osteopaths presented
a bill in the senate which was defeated by a vote of 17 to 12. The
M. D.'s had done their work so thoroughly in electing members of
the legislature, that those on the ground saw that the defeat of
the osteopathic measure was a foregone conclusion. But the agitation
served the purpose of putting the opponents of Osteopathy fairly
on record in opposition to progress and against requiring those
who would practice the healing art to show qualification in the
system which they use. The following from an able speech delivered
in the Alabama senate, September 19, 1903, by Hon. John A. Rogers,
"Osteopaths should be examined in the things they profess
and practice. We ask for this law in Alabama because the existing
law does not in any way test the qualifications of the osteopath
from the standpoint of their therapeutics or treatment. The object
or purpose of all examinations are supposed to be, and should be,
to test the qualification of the one examined to do the thing he
claims to be able to do. We assert the existing law does nothing
of the kind; we do not object to taking the present examination.
We wish to add to it, not to take from it, but we do assert that
the qualifications of the examined should be tested by those who
are familiar with and have full knowledge of the subject upon which
they propose to examine.
"At present the law in the state of Alabama affords no protection
against fake or quack osteopaths, nor indeed does it afford any
against any kind of quackery. To take up the first of these propositions,
I desire to say that I have now in my possession a copy of a contract
made as between an osteopath and a medical licensed doctor of this
city, in which, for a certain moneyed consideration the M. D. guarantees
to the osteopath immunity from the operation of the law forbidding
the practice of Osteopathy in the state of Alabama." That the
medical law as it now stands is little less than a farce is evident
from the above quotation, as well as the facts cited in Chapter
VII, page 239. Dr. Ellen B. Ligon, of Mobile, and Dr. Bowling, President
Southern School of Osteopathy, have been given special credit for
their good work before the legislature.
The drug doctors evidently do not consider the contest ended, and
the following from The Daily Medical, February 9, 1994, shows that
they propose to continue their former tactics:
"Birmingham, Alabama, February 8, 1904. (Special Dispatch.)
- President Cameron, of the State Medical Society, in speaking to
the Medical Society of Jefferson County, advanced the broad proposition
that the physicians of the state should go out into politics, so
that the influence they have can be directed in the right channel;
and aspirants for office who do not favor laws tending to the preservation
of the health of the state and who guard the interests of osteopaths
and other specialists not approved by the regular physicians, may
be eliminated from attendance in the halls of the legislature.
"This pronouncement by Dr. Cameron has caused a sensation,
as it appears to presage an organized effort on the part of the
physicians of the state to see that the measures they desire passed
shall be favored by legislators before they are elected."
Soon after osteopaths first entered Washington, a vigorous attempt
was made in the legislature to rule them out of the state. A bill
was passed which would have had that effect; but it was vetoed by
Governor J. R. Rogers, February 26, 1901. The governor had been
a druggist and could speak as one having authority. The following
quotations show the fearless stand he took:
"This bill appears to be an attempt to prevent the practice
of the art of healing by the graduates of a new school of practitioners
known as 'osteopaths,' who do not prescribe medicines to be taken
into the stomach, and to prevent the use of the title of 'doctor'
by members of this school. 1t is objected to by them and by a large
and apparently growing class of our best and most intelligent citizens
that the enactment into law of these provisions would be an unwarranted
interference with the constitutional right of the citizen to teach
and proclaim truths regarded as of the utmost importance to the
well-being of society. Such vital truths the graduates of this new
school claim to be in possession of, and to be able to substantiate
by the most convincing proofs. They argue that if their faith is
founded upon a fallacy or a falsehood that it must shortly fall
of its own inherent weakness, and ask merely a trial that their
theories may be subjected to the most searching tests. To this the
believers in free government can only reply that if it can be shown
that their teachings are not inimical to the public welfare they
should not be denied the opportunity to announce their discoveries.
"We cannot suppose that all of truth has yet become known
or that wisdom will die with us. Truth is eternal and progressive,
and new truths have always risen from without the specially favored
circles of recognized belief. Always it has been decried and persecuted.
Galileo recanted, it is true, but the truth he taught still lives.
Luther, the poor and friendless monk of Erfurt, launched a truth
upon the world and thrones and dynasties still totter with the resulting
conflict. Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood,
was denounced and decried with utmost bitterness by the medical
fraternity. Jenner, the originator of vaccination, was regarded
as little better than a criminal by orthodox physicians of his time.
"Indeed it is undeniably true that the practice of medicine
and the art of healing has advanced only by the innovations of those
who were looked upon with extremest disfavor by members of the regular
schools. Truth is mighty and will prevail. God forbid that we of
Washington should attempt to stay its progress.
"And yet in our day, physicians of the bluest blood and the
highest attainments are guilty of poisoning the springs of life.
The contents of the drugstore are perhaps more dangerous to the
future well-being of the race than those of the saloon. 'Dope fiends'
are thus created by thousands. Morphine powders, administered to
patients, bring forth their natural fruit even to the third and
fourth generation of descendants.
"Thus a great evil threatens us: druggists and physicians
know its source and lament the ever increasing demand for narcotics
and intoxicants. The wise among them do not themselves partake.
Everybody knows that the lawyer who pleads his own case has a fool
for a client, and object lessons are not wanting in proof of the
opinion that the physician who takes his own pills or the saloonkeeper
who drinks his own whiskey, will shortly heed an urgent call to
go hence and be here no more.
"If the osteopaths can show us a better way and deliver us
even in the smallest degree from enormous, admitted, and increasing
evils, let us not deny them the poor boon of the title of teacher
Another attempt was made in 1903 to drive the osteopaths out, but
the bill was defeated and at the same time the special osteopathic
bill failed to pass. A renewal of the contest in 1905 resulted in
another drawn battle.
Osteopathy had to fight for its rights in New Mexico. (See Chapter
V.) The opposition of the M. D.'s doubtless had much to do with
hastening satisfactory legislative action. A fairly good law was
passed in 1903, and a much better one in 1905. It provides for a
Territorial Board of Osteopathy consisting of three osteopathic
physicians. The following relates to the requirements of applicants
for a certificate
"1st, Evidence of good moral character; 2d, preliminary education
equal to a high-school diploma or teacher's certificate; 3d, the
name of the school or college of Osteopathy from which he or she
was graduated, and which shall have been in good repute as such
at the time of the issuing of their diploma, as determined by the
board; 4th, the date of their diploma and evidence that such diploma
was granted on personal attendance and completion of a course of
study of not less than three full terms of nine months each in three
separate years. Provided, however, that the board may, in its discretion,
receive applications for the examination from osteopaths who have
graduated from a reputable osteopathic college of not less than
two years' course and furnishing evidence of field practice of not
less than one year, and such other information as the board may
require. And such applicant shall at the regular meeting of the
board submit to an examination in the following branches, to-wit:
Anatomy, physiology, chemistry and toxicology, pathology, gynecology,
obstetrics, diagnosis, hygiene, dietetics, surgery, and theory and
practice of Osteopathy, and such other subjects as the board may
The field of therapeutics has been fought over several times in
Colorado. No opposition was shown to osteopaths at first, but as
soon as the medical board began to see the success of Osteopathy
it proceeded to harass those practicing that system. (Chapter V.)
A bill was passed by the General Assembly in 1897, legalizing Osteopathy.
Governor Adams vetoed it, giving as his reasons that there was no
law in the state to interfere with the osteopaths, and that the
science was too new to ask for special legislation.
A bill passed in 1899 designed to limit the practice of the healing
art to three schools. Governor C. S. Thomas promptly vetoed it in
a message of about four thousand five hundred words, in which he
fully set forth its objectionable features. The following quotations
show the trend of the entire message:
"Whatever may be the design of the bill it will not protect
the public health. If statistics are to be relied on the death rate
in Colorado is as low as it ever was, and lower than in some of
the states which have enacted measures of legislation similar to
this. The department of surgery excepted, medicine is not a science.
It is a series of experiments more or less successful, and will
become a science when the laws of health and disease are fully ascertained
and understood. This can be done, not by arresting the progress
of experiment, and binding men down to hard and fast rules of treatment,
but by giving free rein to the man who departs from the beaten highway
and discovers hidden methods and remedies by the wayside. It is
through these means that the public health is promoted and thereby
protected that the members of the medical profession are enabled
to minister with success to human ailments and bodily suffering.
Nearly every advance in the treatment of diseases, in the methods
of their detection, and in the prevention of their occurrence, has
been made by physicians in disregard of the regulations of the order;
and the great body of their brethren, after denouncing and enduring,
have ultimately accepted the unquestionable results of these researches
and discoveries, and made them respectable by adding them to the
category of the recognized and the regular. But for this, the leech,
the lancet, and the pill box would still be the regulators of the
public health, and licenses to practice would be confined to these,
and those only who used them. This is but to say that medical progress
in general has not been made by, but notwithstanding, the great
body of its professors.
"The true intent and purpose of the bill is to restrict the
profession of medicine to the three schools therein mentioned, and.
then limit the number of practitioners to suit the judgment of the
composite board. People desiring medical or surgical service may
employ its licentiates or die without the consolations of the healers.
This is but to say that a medical trust is to be established which
shall regulate demand and supply by absolute control of the product
which forms its basis, the General Assembly furnishing the appliances
whereby the trust shall become effectual.
"The fundamental vice of the bill is that it denies absolutely
to the individual the right to select his own physician.
"The bill, like all kindred forms of paternalism, assumes
that the citizen can not take care of himself. The state must lead
him as a little child lest he fall into trouble unawares. He must
be guided and chided, limited here and licensed there, for his own
protection. Such a system, born of the union of church and state,
crumbled into ashes in the crucible of experience. It cannot flourish
though disguised in the garments of an alleged public necessity.
The privilege of choosing one's own physician is a positive essential
to the public health. Confidence of the patient in the healer does
more to restore him than all the drugs that ever medicined man."
A medical bill passed in 1901, was designed to interfere with Osteopathy;
but the osteopaths were on the alert and succeeded in having a clause
inserted stating specifically that it was inoperative so far as
Osteopathy was concerned. In 1903, the medical men brought forward
another bill. While it was under discussion, Dr. N. A. Bolles asked
Dr. Van Meter, who had the bill in charge, if the osteopaths could
have representation on the board. He said, "Yes." He was
then asked, "Are you willing that the osteopathic representative
should examine osteopathic qualifications of osteopathic applicants
?" "No," was his reply. Thus did the M. D.'s of Colorado,
as in several other states, refuse to give their consent to have
osteopaths tested in the system they practice. In fact the bill
did not provide for any examination in materia medica or therapeutics.
It was promptly vetoed by Governor Peabody. In the veto message
the governor said:
"A careful consideration of the bill meets with the conclusion
that many of its provisions are unjust and oppressive, and that
its general effect would be to curtail rather than to expand the
means applied to the alleviation of the ills human flesh is heir
"Guided by the late experience of similar legislation in other
states, the conclusion is irresistible that all such legislation
has a tendency to restrict the citizen in the employment of whomsoever
he pleases in the treatment of his disease, and it also has a tendency
to build up under the protection of the state a trust or combination
of certain schools or systems of medicine, to the exclusion of all
others, equally meritorious.
"In my judgment, this [bill] invests the board with powers
which might, and probably would, become autocratic and oppressive''
An osteopathic bill was introduced at the same session of the legislature,
but failed to pass; thus leaving both sides in substantially the
same position, so far as the law is concerned, as when the contest
began; but the sentiment in favor of Osteopathy had grown steadily
all the time.
Both sides were prepared for the fray in 1905. The corrupt and
unwarranted methods employed by the M. D.'s in many other states,
were resorted to, as will be seen from the following from the Denver
Times, February 23, 19015:
"Never since the legislature convened has more disgraceful
activity on the part of the lobby been displayed than this forenoon,
when Dr. S. D. Van Meter, secretary of the State Board of Medical
Examiners, showing his absolute contempt for the rebukes and the
scourging which members of the house have given lobbyists, rushed
on to the floor and even while the count was being taken by the
clerk of the house, sought to pull into his seat a member who was
voting contrary to the wishes of the physician.
"For the past ten days a corps of lobbyists, under the direction
of Dr. Van Meter, has maintained headquarters in the house of representatives
where the medical bill had been under consideration. A former bill
introduced in the interests of the same classes who are behind this
bill, was defeated by the house, and the lobby determined, if work
could accomplish it, that the present bill would not suffer a like
"After talking for a week a vote was taken this forenoon on
the bill, resulting in its passage by a vote of 32 to 29.
"Speaker Dickson arrived early in the house this forenoon
and was soon actively engaged with the members of his party who
are opposed to his medical bill. Mr. Dickson personally visited
nearly a dozen of the members, laboring to explain away their objections
to his bill.
"His movements were jealously watched by the friends of the
osteopaths, Representatives Church, Frewen, Breckenridge, and Alexander,
and they constituted themselves into a committee which followed
the trail of the speaker.
"During the course of the debate, Representative Breckenridge
delivered a hot scourging to the lobbyists. We have been harassed
and impeded in our work for more than a week by a lobby of physicians
standing around the members' desks, he said. 'I think it is a shame
and a disgrace that this thing is allowed to continue. I for one
want to see an end put to the practice. I am with Governor Folk,
of Missouri. I believe that when this legislature rids itself of
the lobby that the people will have some show for the enactment
of just and equitable laws, and not until then."'
The bill, after passing the house by a vote of 32 to 29, was also
acted upon favorably by the senate, and became a law by the governor's
signature, April 21, 1901. Dr. N. A. Bolles writes as follows concerning
"The amendments affecting us provide that nothing in the act
shall be construed to prohibit the practice of Osteopathy when not
prescribing medicines nor administering drugs. Every applicant for
a license to practice medicine (broad definition) shall name his
system of practice, and no person shall use the name of any system
except upon possession of a certificate from the State Association
of such system. These amendments give us our freedom, almost absolute,
together with protection in the use of the name. This board will
prosecute all healers using the name of Osteopathy without the certificate
from the trustees of our State Association."
In 1901, the osteopaths of Oklahoma had hard work to prevent the
passage of a medical bill aimed to exclude them from the territory.
In 1903, they secured the passage of an osteopathic bill by a vote
in the upper house of 11 to 1, and unanimously in the lower house.
It was approved promptly by the governor. The law has a reciprocity
clause providing for licensing osteopathic physicians duly authorized
to practice elsewhere in the United States and those who have been
in actual practice five years, who desire to change their residence
to Oklahoma. The following are its essential features:
"Section 1. There shall be a Territorial Board of Osteopathic
Registration and Examination consisting of three persons appointed
by the Governor. Each person appointed as a member of the board
shall, before receiving his certificate of appointment, file with
the governor a certificate of the Oklahoma Osteopathic Association,
signed by its president and secretary, setting forth that the person
named in the certificate is a graduate of a reputable school of
Osteopathy, that he has been engaged in the practice of Osteopathy
in the Territory of Oklahoma for two years or more, and is of good
moral character, and that he is in good standing in his profession.
Section 2 requires "evidence of preliminary education equal
to a high school diploma or a teacher's certificate" and "an
examination as to his qualifications for the practice of Osteopathy,
which shall include the subjects of anatomy, physiology, physiological
chemistry, and toxicology, osteopathic pathology, osteopathic diagnosis,
hygiene, osteopathic obstetrics and gynecology, minor surgery, principles
and practice of Osteopathy, and such other subjects as the board
In Arkansas, as in most other states, the osteopaths were placed
on the defensive by the aggressive action of the M. Ws. The latter
had worked very quietly for a bill that had for its purpose the
exclusion of the osteopaths from the state. They succeeded in having
their law enacted early in 1903, but the sentiment in favor of Osteopathy
became so strong that even many of the friends of the medical law
voted for the special osteopathic bill. The osteopathic bill passed
the house March 30, by a vote of 59 to 7; the senate, April 15,
1903, by 17 to 12. In the spirited discussion it was shown that
there were about one thousand three hundred allopaths in the state
licensed to practice medicine who had never graduated from any school
of medicine, and less than three hundred who had ever spent more
than eighteen months in a medical college. On the other hand there
were no members of the State Osteopathic Association who had spent
less than twenty months in actual attendance in an osteopathic college.
May not these facts have been the impulse that caused the opposition
to the osteopathic bill? The following are its most important provisions
"Section 1. That the governor of this state shall appoint
a board, as soon after the passage of this act as possible, to be
known as the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners. Said board shall
consist of five qualified resident practicing osteopaths, each of
whom shall be a graduate from a legally chartered school of Osteopathy,
wherein the course of study shall not be less than four terms of
five months each.
"Section 3. Every person residing in this state who is not
a graduate of a reputable osteopathic school, as provided in section
2, or any person coming into this state of the age of twenty-one,
making application to register under the provision of this act for
the purpose of practicing Osteopathy in this state, shall first
make application to the secretary of the board and his application
shall be accompanied by a fee of ten dollars, this fee being for
examination and registration before this board. Such examination
shall be written and shall be elementary and of a practical character,
including anatomy, physiology, chemistry, symptomatology, physical
diagnosis, toxicology, urinalysis, theory and practice of Osteopathy.
If in the opinion of the board the applicant possesses the necessary
qualifications, the board shall issue to him a certificate.
"Section 6. The certificate provided for in. this act, shall
not authorize the holder thereof to prescribe or use drugs in the
practice of Osteopathy, or to perform major or operative surgery;
provided that nothing in this act shall be construed as to prohibit
any legalized osteopath from using drugs and performing surgical
operations after having obtained a license from a board of medical
examiners, authorized to issue such license."
Several attempts were made between 1898 and 1904 by the drug doctors
to secure legislative action that would drive Osteopathy from the
state, but without success; and counter attempts were made by the
osteopaths to secure the passage of a bill that would secure them
against annoyance and protect the people against incompetents, but
they also failed. Some idea of the vigor of this long contest can
be obtained by reading the history of court proceedings against
osteopaths in the state in Chapter V.
The contest was brought to a happy termination in February, 1904,
by the passage of a bill which had the approval of almost all parties
concerned. Dr. J. N. McCormack, who had led the opposition to Osteopathy
through the long contest, gave his approval to the bill. It will
be seen that the act declares the practice of Osteopathy to be the
practice of medicine. The most important provisions of the law bearing
upon Osteopathy are as follows:
"Section 2. Examinations shall be held at least semi-annually
at Frankfort, Louisville, Lexington, or other centrally located
places, and on such days as the board may deem will best suit the
convenience of applicants. The questions for all examinations in
the branches common to all schools or systems of practice shall
be prepared by a committee of the board, to consist of five members,
one of whom shall be a homeopath, one an eclectic, and one an osteopath,
and said committee shall conduct all examinations and grade the
same, and when any applicant has made the average prescribed by
law and is so graded, the Board of Health shall admit such applicant
to the practice of his or her profession in this state.
"Section 4. Any person engaged in the practice of Osteopathy
in this state prior to February 1, 1904, shall receive a certificate,
but it shall not permit him to administer drugs, nor to perform
surgical operations with the knife. The words, 'practice of medicine,'
in this act, shall be held to include the practice of Osteopathy.
But no person shall be permitted to practice Osteopathy in this
commonwealth without an osteopathic diploma and certificate as provided
in this section.
"A board to be known as the State Board of Health is hereby
established. It shall consist of eight members. One member of the
board shall be a homeopathic, one an eclectic, and one an osteopathic
physician, and the appointive members shall be regular, or allopathic
physicians, all to be appointed by the governor from lists of three
names for each vacancy, furnished respectively by the state society
or association of such schools or systems of practice as are entitled
to the member, and the successors of such members shall be appointed
in the same manner."
Governor J. C. W. Beckham, in his message approving the bill, said.
"Osteopathy has earned its place in the world as a humane
and successful art of healing, and I take pleasure in affixing my
name to the statute which puts it upon a firm basis and at the same
time surrounds its practice with proper safeguards in the state
In 1903, Pennsylvania M. D.'s introduced a radical measure in the
hope of driving Osteopathy from the state. To counteract the effect
of the medical bill and enable them to make an aggressive as well
as a defensive campaign, the osteopaths introduced a bill of their
own. Both bills were defeated, which left the osteopaths in the
state unmolested. The contest was renewed in 1905. Unfortunately
the osteopaths were not all satisfied with their own bill. It provided
for a four years' course after 1907, and for a course after 1910
of four separate years of at least eight months each. The other
provisions of the bill, such as the osteopathic board, the examination,
etc., were satisfactory to all. After a thorough consideration by
the legislature, it passed the senate by a vote of 36 to 1, and
the house by 105 to 50; but it was vetoed by Governor Pennypacker.
It would be interesting to present that entire veto message, but
lack of space forbids. The governor evidently does not appreciate
Dr. Still's jokes, or he is perpetrating a huge joke himself. As
proof that Dr. Still claimed to possess the power of clairvoyance
and clairaudience, the governor quotes him as claiming to have been
able to see and hear his father, twenty miles away, preparing to
punish him and his brother Jim if they did not do their work. But
the veto was surely justifiable from the governor's standpoint,
as it was urged by some osteopaths as well as by M. D.'s.
A bill passed both branches of the legislature in 1898 which would
have shut Osteopathy out of the state, but it was promptly vetoed
by Governor Taylor. Again in 1904, the M. D. 's undertook to pass
a stringent medical law, but the friends of Osteopathy were active
and amended it while in the hands of the committee, so as not to
interfere with Osteopathy.
In 1903 the legislature passed a medical law with an amendment
which exempts those using manipulations from its provisions.
The medical men made an attempt in 1904 to amend their law, ostensibly
to raise the standard, but really to make it osteopathic proof.
There were only about half a dozen osteopaths in the state, but
they succeeded in defeating the amendment.
An osteopathic bill was presented to the legislature of Mississippi
in 1904, but failed to get out of the committee. As the courts of
the state have declared Osteopathy not to be the practice of medicine,
within the meaning of existing statutes, osteopaths have a good
foothold in the state.
Osteopathy has been before the West Virginia legislature twice;
first in 1903 and again in 1905. In both cases it was a defensive
campaign on the part of the osteopaths, and resulted in preventing
adverse legislation, but failed to get an independent osteopathic
There is no law in North Carolina relating to Osteopathy. Both
sides introduced bills in 1905, but they did not pass beyond committees.
The committee to which the osteopathic bill was referred said, "Don't
argue the case, our minds are made up."
Dr. Arthur Patterson is the only osteopath in Delaware. Early in
1905 a bill which would have prevented any osteopath from practicing
in the state was very quietly introduced and even passed the house
before Dr. Patterson knew anything about it. He engaged an attorney,
went to Dover, and succeeded in having the bill recalled from the
senate and recommitted in the house for a hearing. Amendments were
proposed which were satisfactory to all parties concerned. A strange
turn took place which is explained by the following from a letter
by Dr. Patterson to the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.
"In the meantime a certain optician in Dover who has some sort
of a school for the teaching of the correction of errors of refraction
of the eyes, took advantage of my having held up the bill and held
it up himself, after I had been settled with, to enable him to confer
the degree of 'Doctor of Refraction' upon his graduates; to which
the doctors objected. After several hearings the bill passed the
house unamended and the senate amended it to suit the optician,
and the doctors had the bill recommitted, which killed it, as the
legislature adjourned today. I have lost practically all after I
had made a complete victory."
Two attempts have been made to get an osteopathic law in Utah.
In 1903 and in 1905, the friends of the science succeeded in getting
a bill through the legislature, but both of them were vetoed by
the governor. The last bill, which provided for an osteopathic examining
board, passed the senate by a vote of 12 to 7, and the house by
41 to 1. This showed clearly the sentiment in favor of Osteopathy
in the state, In the last veto, Governor John C. Cutler said: "Since
the present law seems to me sufficient, I am led to withhold my
approval from this act."
In New Jersey, in 1904, a very harmless appearing amendment to
the existing medical law was proposed which was intended to force
every osteopath in the state to take a medical examination. The
osteopaths were on the alert and put the bill to sleep in the committee.
February 21, 1905, the osteopaths introduced a bill in the senate
- providing for an independent board, but it was not reported out
of the committee. The bill was then reconstructed so as to give
the osteopaths three representatives on the State Board of Examiners,
with all the rights and privileges of other members of the board.
They were to examine osteopaths in the theory and practice of Osteopathy.
The bill was reported favorably by the committee March 28, 1905,
passed the senate March 29, only two senators voting against it.
The legislature adjourned March 30 without taking further action.
This was a great campaign of education, and the osteopaths more
than held their own.
During the session of the legislature 1897-8, with only four osteopaths
in the state, a bill was introduced to regulate the practice; but,
as it was only a defensive measure to counteract a drastic medical
bill, it was never reported by the committee. It served its purpose,
however, for the obnoxious bill was also killed. Again, in 1900-1,
a bill was introduced, on the defensive as before, and it shared
the same fate, as did the medical bill also. The following in regard
to the medical bill appeared in Case and Comment, a lawyer's journal,
published it Rochester, N. Y.:
"A half-witted hoodlum with a loaded machine gun is not more
dangerous than a reckless legislator with a copious vocabulary.
The astounding possibilities of a blunderbuss enactment are vividly
shown by a proposed law, which the press reports say has been introduced
into the New York legislature at the request of the medical societies,
to amend the statutes relating to the unlawful practice of medicine,
so as to include this provision:
"'Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine, within
the meaning of this act, who shall prescribe, direct, recommend,
or advise for the use of any other person, any remedy or agent whatsoever,
whether with or without the use of any medicine, drug, instrument,
or other appliance, for the treatment, relief, or cure of any wound,
fracture, or bodily injury, infirmity, physical or mental, or other
defect or disease.'
"If this becomes a law, it will be a misdemeanor punishable
by line and imprisonment, for one friend to advise another that
a hot lemonade will be good for his cold. An anxious mother would
violate such a law every time she gave her child honey for hoarseness,
or put goose grease on its nose for the snuffles. It would be a
crime to recommend larger shoes for corns. Such a law making it
an offense to give gratuitous advice from parent to child or friend
to friend, respecting the use of common and simple remedies, would
make the legislators who should so enact the targets of caustic
The following winter a very fair bill was introduced. The hearing
before the judiciary committee, to which it had been referred, was
set for January 29, 1902. Unfortunately no one on the committee
was familiar with Osteopathy, and as only one hour was allowed each
side, it was difficult to enlighten the committee on the subject.
The annual meeting of the State Medical Society was held the same
day, and nearly five hundred M. D's crowded into the senate chamber
to influence adverse action. The bill failed to pass.
The subject was up for decision in 1903 and 1904, and the contest
was renewed with accumulated vigor in 1905. An osteopathic bill
meeting the requirements of the Regents, the same as all medical
laws in that state, was introduced. The medical society of the State
of New York led the opposition, issued the following circular letter
February 1, 1905, and had it placed in the hands of every member
of the legislature, the governor, and the lieutenant governor.
"SIR, - At the annual meeting of the Medical Society of the
State of New York the following resolutions were adopted and it
was directed that a copy be sent to you.
"WHEREAS, Information from reliable sources has been received
that certain people employing as therapeutic agents, methods to
which have been given the names of massage, therapeutic gymnastics,
Swedish movements, osteopathy, mechano-neural, sometopathy, seismo-therapy
vibration, vibrassage, and other terms, desire at the hands of the
legislature the legal right to diagnosticate and treat diseases
of the human body; and
"WHEREAS, We believe that the greatest latitude consistent
with the necessary and proper protection of the people, should be
given all who practice the healing art, and that the medical laws
of the State of New York are elastic enough to permit the practice
of any and all methods which have or can be desired for the prevention
or relief of disease. Therefore, be it
"Resolved, That this society deprecates these efforts of incompetent
people to secure the privilege to prey upon the community, and respectfully
petitions the legislature to refuse to sanction any efforts such
as herein enumerated.
"Resolved, That the Medical Society of the State of New York
petitions the legislature to refuse to enact any laws which will
in any way discriminate either for or against any class of people
who claim to have any peculiar methods which may or may not be valuable
for the treatment of diseases or of errors and anomalies of the
"Resolved, That a copy of this resolution, signed by the president
and secretary of this society, be placed in the hands of every member
of the legislature, including the governor and lieutenant governor.
Very respectfully, H. D. WFY, President.
"F. G. CURTIS, Secretary.'
The climax was reached by the learned Medical Society of the State
of New York when it protested against any but it having the "right
to diagnosticate and treat diseases of the human. body," when
it claims that within its ranks may be evolved "any and all
methods which have or can b e desired for the prevention or relief
of disease;" when by implication it says that all but it are
"incompetent people" who "prey upon the community;"
when it demands that none but it should have the privilege of doing
anything now or hereafter "which may or may not be valuable
for the treatment of diseases or of errors or anomalies of the human
body." Veritably, that Society is “IT.”
The New York Osteopathic Society, through its president, Dr. R.
H. Williams, and its secretary, Dr. H. L. Chiles, made a reply to
the resolutions in which they showed that the proposed law would
not interfere with existing laws governing the practice of medicine;
that Osteopathy is established as an independent system, as complete
as the allopathic, homeopathic and eclectic schools; that the education
required by osteopathic physicians is equal to that of the practitioners
of medicine; that Osteopathy has absolutely nothing in common with
massage, Swedish movements, etc.; that the opposition comes not
from the public but from the New York Medical Society; and that
it affects no other profession or system of treatment.
In 1903, Dr. Robert T. Morris appeared before a legislative committee
with a section of a child preserved in a formality solution and
challenged the osteopaths present to move ribs, vertebrae, or other
bones. March 1, 1905, he brought a section of a lamb before the
senate committee when a hearing was given on the osteopathic bill,
and renewed the challenge. As osteopaths do not pretend to restore
the dead to life, or exercise their curative powers upon the dead,
none of them accepted the challenge. Concerning the first incident,
C. E. Fleck, D. 0., wrote an article published in the Journal of
the American Osteopathic Association in May, 1903, from which the
following is an excerpt:
"The absurdity of such a test, coming from an educated physician,
is astounding, and the argument drawn from it baseless, for it disregards
the fact that bodily function is dependent upon life; an axiomatic
"The function of an articulation is motion, and this function
begins and ceases with life. Even laymen can see that forced motion
between the bones of a cadaver, though possible, has no connection
with any test of a theory that deals with life. Even the clever
ingenuity of Dr. Morris himself would, I fear, be taxed in endeavoring
to demonstrate on his dead baby the result of a cathartic or the
healing process of wounds."
April 25, 1905, the senate vote upon the measure was yeas, 24;
nays, 19. The constitutional requirement was 26, hence the bill
did not pass.
An independent osteopathic bill was introduced in the senate January
19, 1905. It was referred to a committee composed of three allopathic
physicians, which did not report the bill. After much delay it was
then introduced in the house and passed by a vote of 35 to 16. The
fight was renewed in the senate, and the bill was indefinitely postponed,
thus defeating it.
The situation in Massachusetts is peculiar. The medical law is
very liberal, and until recently there has been practically no examination
in therapeutics. It is not necessary to be a graduate of a medical
college in order to take the examination. Thirty-five osteopaths
have passed the examination and been registered the same as other
physicians. The law says:
"Section 7. Examinations shall be wholly or in part in writing
in the English language, and shall be of a scientific and practical
character. They shall include the subjects of anatomy, surgery,
physiology, pathology, obstetrics, gynecology, practice of medicine
and hygiene, and shall be sufficiently thorough to test the applicant's
fitness to practice medicine.
"The provisions of the eight preceding sections shall not
be held to discriminate against any particular school or system
of medicine. They shall not apply to osteopathists, pharmacists,
clairvoyants, or persons practicing hypnotism, magnetic healing,
mind cure, massage, Christian Science, or cosmopathic method of
healing, if they do not violate any of the provisions of section
The osteopaths attempted legislation in 1905. They proposed an
amendment to the law which would have placed them on the same footing
as other physicians and would have ruled incompetents out of the
state. As it is, there are twenty-four or more non-graduates who
claim to be osteopaths in the state who are permitted to impose
upon the people and who have the same protection as those who are
thoroughly qualified. Unfortunately, the profession was divided,
a few opposing the bill, and it was defeated. The Boston Transcript
contained a good editorial on the subject, from which the following
quotations are made:
"The interest felt in the hearing upon the osteopathic bill,
which was given at the State House yesterday, was unusual and unexpected,
so much so that it made an adjournment to larger quarters than those
first provided, necessary, There was naturally some opposition,
but the sentiment of the gathering was upon the whole apparently
very favorable to the new legislation sought. By the vital provision
of this bill Osteopathy would take its place among the legitimized
schools of healing where it properly belongs. It has not made its
demand until it was ready to meet the tests that are imposed upon
general practice. It represents a well-defined system, and it can
show results. If it cannot do all that it claims, it hardly differs
in that respect from some of the older schools of the healing art.
"The osteopathic schools have been steadily improving, until
now, with three-year courses, they can claim, in most respects,
an equal standing with those that have been much longer established.
The purpose of this bill is to protect this branch of the profession,
and the public as well. It will shut out the 'fake' osteopaths and
give credentials only to those who can prove themselves entitled
to them. This recognition of the claims of the new school would
be no more than just. If it is not given now it must be given later."
Dr. Carrie A. Gilman, Honolulu, is the only osteopath in Hawaii.
Her skill as a physician and her influence as a citizen has placed
those islands of the sea in the osteopathic column. The law was
approved by Governor G. R. Carter, April 21, 1905. It requires osteopaths
to obtain a certificate from the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners
of the State of California, until such time as there is an osteopathic
board appointed for the Territory of Hawaii.