| CHAPTER IV OSTEOPATHIC LEGISLATION. 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 Ohio. "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: "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; "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 two years. 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 as follows: “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 is made."
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 the state. 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 of Vermont. "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 record, etc," 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 without examination.
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 says: "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 to societies. "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 his." 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 of Montana." "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, etc." 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 appointment." "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 of Osteopathy."
"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, and gynecology." 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 examinations. 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 of Osteopathy. "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 to Osteopathy: "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, "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.
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 as follows: "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 practice. "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 amendment. "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 reached. "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 the osteopaths. "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 as follows: "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 passage of the bill called forth the following passionate lament from Dr. Andrews, President of the State Medical Society, in his annual address: "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 the people.
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 its favor. 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. 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, is cited "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 or doctor." 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 require."
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 to. "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 fate. "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 law: "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 may require."
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 of Kentucky."
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. FLORIDA. 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 law.
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.
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 ridicule." 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 human body. "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. 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 truth. "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 eight." 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. |