Page 9 - Cleaning_House
P. 9
ANING THE HOUSE — BY B. J. PALMER
and qualified chiropractors to appear be is why the common-law choice of the
fore a board of Chiropractic examiners, common people spoke in its common ver
to pass an examination upon Chiroprac dict.
tic, to get a license to practice Chiro
practic. These chiropractors, who are The second case was that of Mrs. Malt-
under defense by the IdA, are more com by in Omaha. She was arrested and en
petent and better qualified than are 105 joined, under an injunction, from prac
(2 of 6) of the 135 who received licenses ticing, on the ground that her office was
by exemption at the time of the passage a nuisance. Her case went to the Ne
of the act; yet they are arrested under a braska Supreme Court. In effect, the
Chiropractic statute for practicing Chi Court stated that such an act was not
ropractic without a license, when they enjoinable; that the state had recourse at
could not secure such a license if they statutory-law offense. That the defend
did ask for such. The issue, so far as ant should have been tried under the
statutes are concerned, is one of a pro statutes herein made and provided. When
hibitive standard (3 of 9) excluding chi the prosecuting attorney was asked if
ropractors who are competent. The is he would prosecute o t h e r s , he said:
sue, so far as the I£A is concerned, is to “ What’s the use? The juries will not con
be satisfied that they are competent and vict.” (APPLAUSE.)
qualified and protect them in their rights.
The issue, so far as the public is con The third case was that of Dr. Milli
cerned, is to protect their common-law gan. He was arrested, tried, convicted
rights against being further encroached and fined $25. Immediately after the
upon by class legislation even though trial, public indignation ran so high that
asked f o r by chiropractors a n d even the prosecuting attorney and judge were
though granted to them by. legislators compelled to withdraw their nomination
whom they nominated and helped to elect. papers from b e i n g re-elected back to
The issue, rightfully estimated, is one of those two offices. The common-law rights
common law against statutory law. must be protected one way, if not an
other.
FOUR CASES CITED
The fourth case was that of Dr. Fruiti
T HE first case tried was Mrs. Clark ger. He was arrested, tried, convicted
son’s case at Holdrege, Neb., in and fined $1 upon the recommendation
which she was “ charged with practicing by the jury that the minimum fine be
Chiropractic without a Chiropractic li charged.
cense.” She admitted, on the stand, that
she was practicing Chiropractic and that So you see the common law again
she had no Chiropractic license. The jury, works.
within one hour, returned with a verdict
o f '“ Not Guilty.” All we had to do in the Here are a number of actualities in a
defense of that case was to prove the state where chiropractors are decreas
four points— the four fundamental com ing their number by statutory regulation,
mon-law points. First, that the people and the common law is again restoring
who are sick in this town have a right that state back to its normal status. I
to get well. That they have a right to mention these cases that you can see that
Chiropractic to get them well. That they the rights of the people must be pro
have a right to Chiropractic adjustments tected and when statutory regulations
to get them well, provided the fourth conflict with the right of opinion of the
right is not abridged, that he must be people, it will not stand. It cannot stand.
competent and qualified to do the thing
CALIFORNIA CLEANS QUICKLY
he holds himself out to do. All we had
T HIS reminds me of an odd situation
to prove was his right (or her right) with that occurred a short time ago in
California. Tom Morris said to the spe
their three rights. The three rights were
cial prosecuting attorney for the State
the people’s and the fourth right was
Medical Board, Mr. Castlelaw: “ Mr.
Mrs. Clarkson’s, which we proved. That
Castlelaw, are you pleased with your
campaign of extermination of chiroprac
tors in California?” The has had a
[ 9]
and qualified chiropractors to appear be is why the common-law choice of the
fore a board of Chiropractic examiners, common people spoke in its common ver
to pass an examination upon Chiroprac dict.
tic, to get a license to practice Chiro
practic. These chiropractors, who are The second case was that of Mrs. Malt-
under defense by the IdA, are more com by in Omaha. She was arrested and en
petent and better qualified than are 105 joined, under an injunction, from prac
(2 of 6) of the 135 who received licenses ticing, on the ground that her office was
by exemption at the time of the passage a nuisance. Her case went to the Ne
of the act; yet they are arrested under a braska Supreme Court. In effect, the
Chiropractic statute for practicing Chi Court stated that such an act was not
ropractic without a license, when they enjoinable; that the state had recourse at
could not secure such a license if they statutory-law offense. That the defend
did ask for such. The issue, so far as ant should have been tried under the
statutes are concerned, is one of a pro statutes herein made and provided. When
hibitive standard (3 of 9) excluding chi the prosecuting attorney was asked if
ropractors who are competent. The is he would prosecute o t h e r s , he said:
sue, so far as the I£A is concerned, is to “ What’s the use? The juries will not con
be satisfied that they are competent and vict.” (APPLAUSE.)
qualified and protect them in their rights.
The issue, so far as the public is con The third case was that of Dr. Milli
cerned, is to protect their common-law gan. He was arrested, tried, convicted
rights against being further encroached and fined $25. Immediately after the
upon by class legislation even though trial, public indignation ran so high that
asked f o r by chiropractors a n d even the prosecuting attorney and judge were
though granted to them by. legislators compelled to withdraw their nomination
whom they nominated and helped to elect. papers from b e i n g re-elected back to
The issue, rightfully estimated, is one of those two offices. The common-law rights
common law against statutory law. must be protected one way, if not an
other.
FOUR CASES CITED
The fourth case was that of Dr. Fruiti
T HE first case tried was Mrs. Clark ger. He was arrested, tried, convicted
son’s case at Holdrege, Neb., in and fined $1 upon the recommendation
which she was “ charged with practicing by the jury that the minimum fine be
Chiropractic without a Chiropractic li charged.
cense.” She admitted, on the stand, that
she was practicing Chiropractic and that So you see the common law again
she had no Chiropractic license. The jury, works.
within one hour, returned with a verdict
o f '“ Not Guilty.” All we had to do in the Here are a number of actualities in a
defense of that case was to prove the state where chiropractors are decreas
four points— the four fundamental com ing their number by statutory regulation,
mon-law points. First, that the people and the common law is again restoring
who are sick in this town have a right that state back to its normal status. I
to get well. That they have a right to mention these cases that you can see that
Chiropractic to get them well. That they the rights of the people must be pro
have a right to Chiropractic adjustments tected and when statutory regulations
to get them well, provided the fourth conflict with the right of opinion of the
right is not abridged, that he must be people, it will not stand. It cannot stand.
competent and qualified to do the thing
CALIFORNIA CLEANS QUICKLY
he holds himself out to do. All we had
T HIS reminds me of an odd situation
to prove was his right (or her right) with that occurred a short time ago in
California. Tom Morris said to the spe
their three rights. The three rights were
cial prosecuting attorney for the State
the people’s and the fourth right was
Medical Board, Mr. Castlelaw: “ Mr.
Mrs. Clarkson’s, which we proved. That
Castlelaw, are you pleased with your
campaign of extermination of chiroprac
tors in California?” The has had a
[ 9]
