Page images
PDF
EPUB

the one just mentioned. The state was divided into four medical districts, in each of which was to be a society. The societies were to have power to examine students and grant diplomas and it was provided that “No person not having a diploma, or previously practicing in the state, shall commence the practice of physic and surgery, in either of the aforesaid districts, until he shall have passed an examination as hereinafter directed; and if any person shall so practice previous to having obtained a diploma, he shall thereafter be disqualified from collecting any debt or debts incurred by such practice, in any court or before any magistrate in the state." An exception was made, however, for persons coming from any other place, and producing to either society "a diploma from any respectable university of the United States, or any other country. Two years later, on January 3, 1821, this act was repealed.

On January 15, 1825, a third act was enacted, dividing the state into five districts, each district to elect a censor. The five censors so chosen were to form a board"for the purpose of examining and ascertaining the qualifications of those who wish to practice physic in this state, and grant a license to such as they may find properly qualified.” It was enacted that any person practicing without a license should be debarred from recovering any debt accruing from such practice, and that if such person charged for practice” he should forfeit for each offense the sum of twenty dollars to be recovered by suit before a justice of the peace by any person who should prosecute, and to be paid to the overseers of the poor of the county. Exception was made for anyone who had theretofore “obtained the diploma of any respectable medical society, or the license of any respectable medical society”; also, “students practicing under the direction of legal practicing physicians shall not be subject to such penalty."78 This act was short-lived for it was repealed at the next General Assembly, on January 25, 1826.

76. The act also required that all physicians keep, accurate records of births, deaths and diseases, to be transmitted to the presidents of the societies and published in one or more newspapers. It provided for the organization of "a general or state society.” It also enacted that the board of physicians may examine medical bills, which may be by the patient considered exorbitant, and make such deductions as may to them seem reasonable." See Fifth Annual Report 1883 Illinois State Board of Health pp. 53-54.

77... This provision was surely intended to reach the practice of those who, like the Thomsonians, evaded the statutory prohibition by collecting fees in advance.

78. It was made the duty of the overseers of the poor to prosecute “whenever it shall come to their knowledge that an illegal practitioner is practicing and receiving pay therefor." Sec. 4 made it the duty of all justices of the peace, as well as the circuit court “to inspect and allow all physicians' bills, whenever the same shall come before them, when suit shall be brought

The following comment by the energetic Secretary of the Illinois State Board of Health, Dr. John H. Rauch, explains the abortive career of these early attempts to regulate the practice of medicine in Illinois :79

"A perusal of the provisions of these various efforts readily indicates the causes of their miscarriage. The territory was too new; the community spare and widely scattered; the number of physicians few; facilities for travel and intercourse were wanting; mails were infrequent-and, withal, there were other questions, doubtless considered of more vital importance, than the statutory regulation of the practice of medicine.” It was not until 1877, after the lapse of over fifty years, that Illinois

, again had a medical practice act.

The story of the organization of the American Medical Association in 1847, of the community of interests and effort which became possible between the regulars and the irregulars when the irregulars became organized and established colleges and higher educational standards, and of the flood of medical practice acts which ensued in the twenty years beginning with 1773, must be reserved for another occasion. So also must be reserved an account of the very interesting conflicts which followed the introduction and spread of Christian Science healing, osteopathy, chiropractic, etc.; and the encroachments of the dentists, optometrists, chiropodists, etc., over the domain into which the regulars had tried to forbid trespassing.

on the same.” The jury was given power "to reduce the charge to a reasonable amount, if the same shall be overcharged.”

79. Fifth Annual Report 1883 Illinois State Board of Health p. 55.

ILLINOIS LAW

REVIEW

Published monthly except July to October, inclusive, by

Northwestern University Press Nathan William MacChesney, President. Frederic B. Crossley, Secretary and Treasarer $3 PER YEAR

PRICE OF THIS NUMBER 50 CENTS Subscribers who wish to discontinue their subscriptions at the end of the subscription period should notify the business office of the REVIEW; otherwise it will be assumed that a continuation of the subscription is desired

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

ALBERT KOCOUREK

BOARD OF MANAGING EDITORS FREDERIC B. CROSSLEY

HENRY C. HALL

ROBERT W. MILLAR CHARLES B. ELDER

ALBERT KOCOUREK John H. WIGMORE NATHAN WILLIAM MACCHESNEY

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Undergraduates
WINSLOW WHITMAN THOMAS G. MCBRIDE BERNARD A. STOL
GEORGE E. BILLETT ROBERT L. DONIGAN Calvin D. TROWBRIDGE
HUBERT VAN HOOK THOMAS A. MATTHEWS JOHN C. TUCKER
James F. OATES, JR. EDWARD S. PRICE MAHLON O. West
Owen F. Rall

Faculty and Bar
EDWIN C. AUSTIN
Louis M. GREELEY

CHARLES G. LITTLE CECIL BARNES

WILLIAM H. HAIGHT ELMER M. LEESMAN
ANDREW A. BRUCE
WILLIAM B. Hale

ALBERT S. LONG
Louis G. CALDWELL
HERBERT HARLEY

HARRIS C. LUTKIN
MITCHELI. D. FOLLANSBEE RICHARD Y. HOFFMAN THEODORE SCHMIDT
JAMES J. FORSTALL CHARLES C. HYDE
Es-Officio, R. ALLAN STEPHENS, Secretary, Illinois State Bar Association

To promote free expression of view on the part of contributors, the Editorial Board, collectively, assumes no responsibility for any statement in the columns of the REVIEW. Each article or communication, including editorial notes, comments on cases, and book reviews, is identified by the name or the initials of the writer.

EDITORIAL NOTE

THE THIRTY-THIRD ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSION

ERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS

Following its usual practice of meeting in the week preceding the meeting of the American Bar Association, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws held its annual sessions at Minneapolis from August 21 to 27.

The Conference considered drafts of uniform laws on the following subjects: Mortgages; chattel mortgages; compulsory attendance of non-resident witnesses ; acknowledgments; arbitration; sale of securities (blue sky' law); and joint parental guardianship of children. The Conference also had before it the report of a committee to study the problem of uniform legislation for the judicial determination of industrial disputes; but in view of the very doubtful constitutional status of any such legislation under the recent decision of the Supreme Court upon the Kansas act (Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 630) the conference concurred in the recommendation of the committee to defer action.

This was one of the very few subjects that have ever been before the Conference upon the fundamental merits of which public opinion is very much divided; it has been the general policy of the Conference to keep away from highly controversial questions, while it feels justified in dealing with matters which, though not entirely uncontroversial, have acquired an apparently permanent status in American legislation, with a consequent desirability of uniformity and the best standard of legislative expression. This accounts for the taking up of such subjects as 'blue sky' legislation and joint parental guardianship. Acknowledgment of deeds for use in another state, and compelling the attendance of non-resident witnesses in the jurisdiction of their residence are matters of interstate comity with regard to which concurrent and identical legislation by all states is obviously desirable; chattel mortgages and arbitration should be uniformly regulated in order to facilitate commercial dealings from state to state, but they are beyond the province of federal legislation, not being technically interstate commerce.

It is in the field of commercial law that the National Conference has in the past done its most valuable and successful work. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act has become law in all American jurisdictions, a unique demonstration of the possibilities of voluntary co-operation among the states in unifying law. We have in Illinois other uniform commercial acts concerning bills of lading, warehouse receipts, stock transfers, partnerships, limited partnerships, and sales; all of these acts are law in a considerable number of other states, securing to the jurisdictions adopting them the benefits of unity of law, without surrender of legislative power. The Illinois Commission has thus far been unable to secure favorable action on the part of our General Assembly on the subjects of fraudulent conveyances and conditional sales; in fact, no uniform legislation has been enacted in Illinois in the last three legislative sessions. The Illinois Commision does not expect the legislature to abdicate its independent judgment and accept a law simply because it comes from the National Conference. It desires the closest scrutiny of the measures it presents on their merits; but when they pass that scrutiny, it asks that the object and the principle of uniformity be given proper weight. The Commission asks for the same attitude on the part of the Illinois bar.

The state has by statute recognized the promotion of uniformity of legislation in the United States as its legislative policy. At a time when the aid of the state is sought to be enlisted on behalf of so many material interests, it may be difficult to get a popular hearing for so abstract a cause as the national unity of law; but surely an appeal for interest and support may be made with hope of success to the legal profession.

There is now on foot a comprehensive undertaking on a national scale to restate the common law. As this work proceeds and each branch of the law receives formulation at the hands of those believed to be most competent to deal with it, it may appear desirable to settle the law on selected points by legislative enactment. If so, a preliminary scrutiny of the propositions by the only body in the country that is in the habit of giving parliamentary consideration to technical questions of law, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, may be invaluable. With a view to this possibility the Conference has appointed a committee on cooperation with the American Law Institute. General MacChesney, in his presidential address to the Conference, also called attention to another function which the National Conference may perform with profit, namely, the legal standardization of welfare measures. Diversity of policy with regard to the social and economic phases of legislation is a legitimate and perhaps not altogether undesirable

a feature of our federal system; but all legislation has also purely legal phases, and these should be the product of a national jurisprudence. The ways and means of accomplishing this object must be carefully considered before definite plans can be formulated.

There is thus plenty of work ahead for the National Conference. It is not a spectacular body, and it does not desire a record for speed. But it has valuable achievements to its credit; and if it is properly supported by the bar, it has great possibilities of future usefulness.

ERNST FREUND,
President, Illinois Commission for the Uniformity

of Legislation in the United States.

« PreviousContinue »