whom Lighthall was committed for trial under bond of $500. Immediately after filing, his bond he again opened his "medicine tent," etc., but learning that another complaint had been entered against him, involving the deposit of another $500, and that it was the intention to file a complaint for every repetition of his swindling practices, he packed up his traps and left town.

Loose.-Through the efforts of Dr. J. C. McCormick, of Bunker Hill, Macoupin county, another Indian quack has been compelled to leave Illinois. One "Dr." Loose, claiming to have obtained his medical skill and knowledge from the "Winnebago, Chippewa, Menominee and Ojibway tribes of Indians of the far North,' was arrested, September 5th, on the complaint of Dr. McCormick, for practicing in violation of the Medical-Practice Act.

The prosecution showed the man to be totally devoid of any medical knowledge or skill, and an arrant humbug and imposter, fleecing the credulous by his claims of unusual powers acquired from savages. Loose was held in the penal sum of $150 for his appearance at Carlinville, but has since left the State.

Keck. Following on Lighthall's heels, Mrs. Dr. Keck, of Davenport, Iowa, Peoria and elsewhere, made her appearance in Decatur. The sentiment of the community and the action of the medical men in that town, practically "boycotted" her, so that it was impossible to find a patient for whom she had prescribed, to be used as a witness in the necessary legal process. After a pretense of fulfilling her advertised stay, she left without having done any business that could be discovered.

Nobis. The "Naturarzt" Nobis, to whom reference was made in my last report as having been refused a certificate, began operations soon thereafter, in the neighborhood of Barry, Pike county. His methods were similar to those of all quacks-seeking out chronic cases of incurable diseases, professing unusual skill and claiming the possession of secret remedies. Among other things he boasted of his ability to cure epilepsy in a marvelously short time with one of the nauseous preparations of the Middle Ages, and of which various indescribable portions of birds, reptiles, etc., are the principal components. Before it was possible to secure his arrest he became alarmed and left Pike county, ostensibly for Iowa.

Flowers.-Another of the numerous victims of the notorious quack and swindler, H. D. Flowers, of Fulton City, Whiteside county, has been heard from through the following affidavit, transmitted to the BOARD:

STATE OF ILLINOIS, Ss.
CARROLL COUNTY,

Henry Fox, of Thomson, Carroll county, being duly sworn, upon his oath deposes and says that on or about the 20th day of November. 1882, an agent representing Dr. H. D. Flowers, of Fulton, Whiteside county, came to my place looking for patients for said Flowers, and guaranteeing a "cure or no pay." A few days thereafter Dr. Flowers himself arrived, and warranted to cure myself, wife and daughter for the sum of sixty dollars. He left a lot of medicine for us to use, and promised to call every week or two to see how we were getting along. After getting my note for the amount, he cleared out, and has not been seen here since, now about nine months. As for his medicine, it was entirely worthless, and did neither myself or family any good; my wife thinks it did her harm. I denounce the said Dr. H. D. Flowers as a full-fledged swindler.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of August, 1883.

HENRY FOX.

WESLEY DIAL, J. P.

Other correspondence from Lombard, DuPage county, Roberts, Ford county, Fulton and elsewhere, has also been received. Among this is a letter from a townsman and old acquaintance of Flowers, in which is given the formula for Flowers' panacea. It consists of an infusion of mandrake, gentian, colomba, quassia, bone-set and wormwood, with a little alcohol and sugar. The writer says he has seen Flowers "do up a two-bushel basket full of these herbs and roots at one time, and boast that the result would net him two thousand dollars worth of notes. Every one gets the same medicine, no matter what the ailment is. Flowers' chief concern is to get a note from his victim for as much money as possible; to sell this for what he can get, and then to keep out of the way.'

Advertising Specialties.

The attention of the BOARD has been called, during the quarter, to the advertisements of various persons setting forth their special "isms." In nine cases the individuals, when addressed concerning the unprofessional and misleading character of these advertisements, desisted from the practice.

Prosecutions under the Act.

In connection with the prosecutions by State's Attorneys, for violations of the Medical-Practice Act, I have addressed the following communication to the Attorney General:

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF HEALTH,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, SPRINGFIELD, Oct. 1, 1883. SIR-It being deemed necessary to put in the complaint, hereto attached, the allegations therein underlined, and it being necessary to make the same allegations in the indictment or information, I have the honor to request that you state whether it is or is not necessary that the people should prove, beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the accused did not have an unrevoked certificate from this BOARD of the genuineness of his diploma or license.

2. That the accused did not have an unrevoked certificate from this BOARD, authorizing him to practice in the State of Illinois.

3. That the accused did not have a commission as a surgeon of the United States army or navy.

4. If it is necessary the people should prove any or all of these allegations, is it necessary to produce the records for that purpose? If not necessary, how can the allegations be proved otherwise?

5. Is there any statute of the State of Illinois which makes a certificate of the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, under the seal of the BOARD, to the effect that a given individual is not authorized to practice by said BOARD, evidence in any court?

6. Is the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH such a public office as that certificates of its records, duly authenticated by the seal of the BOARD, can be used as evidence?

7. Is the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH vested with discretionary power to determine what constitutes a legally chartered medical institution in good standing?

Very respectfully,

JOHN H. RAUCH, M. D., Secretary. The HON. JAMES MCCARTNEY, Attorney General, State of Illinois.

The form of complaint and information alluded to is that prepared by Attorney General Edsall, heretofore published by the BOARD. Attorney General McCartney's reply is as follows:

STATE OF ILLINOIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. October 13, 1883.

DR. JOHN H. RAUCH, Secretary STATE BOARD OF HEALTH:

DEAR SIR-I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 1st inst.. in which you request me to state whether it is not necessary, in prosecutions for a violation of the law of 1877 regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois, that the people should prove beyond a reasonable doubt

I. That the accused did not have an unrevoked certificate from this BOARD of the genuineness of his diploma or license.

2. That the accused did not have an unrevoked certificate from this BOARD authorizing him to practice in the State of Illinois.

3. That the accused did not have a commission as a surgeon of the United States army or navy.

4. If it is necessary the people should prove any or all of these allegations, is it necessary to produce the records for that purpose? If not necessary, how can the allegations be proved otherwise?

5. Is there any law or statute of the State of Illinois which makes a certificate of the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, under the seal of the BOARD, to the effect that a given individual is not authorized to practice by said BOARD, evidence in any court?

6.. Is the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH such a public office as that certificates of its records, duly authenticated by the seal of the BOARD, can be used as evidence?

These questions are very comprehensive and involve the indictment, trial, conviction and sentence, almost, in a suit for violation of the statute regulating the practice of medicine. All the questions can, however, be answered by fixing the status of the law regulating the practice of medicine under which these prosecutions must be had.

Foundation of the Law.

This law can only be maintained under the theory that it is a proper exercise of the police power of the State-that power existing primarily in all governments-the power to pass all laws deemed necessary to protect the health, morals, lives, limbs, comfort and quiet of all persons, and the protection of all property within the State. Unless coming under this broad power this law would be an unwarrantable interference with private rights.

Conditions of the Law.

Coming then, under the police power of the State, and being maintained upon the theory that the law is enacted for the preservation of the public health from the experiments of quacks and unqualified persons, it must be construed as an absolute prohibition against the practice of medicine in this State, except under the conditions specified in the act. These conditions are, that the person practicing-if he practices under a diploma from a medical college-shall have a certificate from the BOARD OF HEALTH of the State that his diploma is genuine; or, if he is not practicing under a diploma, that he has been examined and found qualified by the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH; or that he is a commissioned surgeon of the United States army or navy; or that he had been practicing medicine ten years in the State of Illinois prior to the first day of July, 1877; or that he was a student prescribing under the supervision of preceptors; or was performing gratuitous services in a case of emergency. These are the conditions, and these alone, under which a person may "profess publicly to be a physician and to prescribe for the sick, or to append to his name the letters of M. D."

Burden of Proof upon the Defendant.

When the question is raised in any case, and it has been proven that a person has been practicing medicine, it devolves upon him to show that he had a right to practice under one of the conditions specified in the act. If he has the certificate required by the act, he can produce it in his defence; if he is a commissioned surgeon in the United States army or navy, he can produce his commission; if he practiced medicine ten years prior to

July, 1877, he can readily prove that fact; or, if he was a student prescribing under a preceptor, or performing gratuitous services in cases of emergency, he can readily produce this evidence in his defense.

There are several reasons why the burden of proving these conditions is cast upon the defendant, when once it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has practiced medicine within the jurisdiction of the court. One is, that the best evidence must always be produced, and the best evidence in these cases must necessarily be in the possession of the defendant. If he is practicing under a certificate, the certifleate is the best evidence of that fact, and it is in the possession of the defendant; if he is a commissioned surgeon of the United States army or navy, his commission is the best evidence of that fact, and the commission is in his possession; if he has practiced medicine ten years in this State prior to July 1. 1877, he alone knows by whom he can prove that fact; if he prescribed as a student under the supervision of a preceptor, or performed gratuitous services in a case of emergency, it is the accused only who knows the facts and by whom they can be proven.

The People Not Required to Prove a Negative.

Again: It is very rarely required that any party should be compelled to prove a negative. If the whole burden of proof in these cases was on the People, they would be required to prove that the defendant had not a certificate; that he was not a commissioned surgeon in the United States army or navy; that he had not practiced medicine ten years in this State prior to July 1, 1877; that he was not a student prescribing under the supervision of preceptors; and that he was not performing gratuitous services in a case of emergency. In each of these cases, it will be seen, the State would be required to prove a negative.

Another rule governing the admission of evidence is, that where the subject-matter of a negative averment lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the other party, the averment is taken as true, unless disproved by that party. Thus, if it should be charged in an indictment or complaint that A. B., on etc., etc., etc., practiced medicine without then and there possessing the qualifications prescribed in the certain act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, entitled "An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois," approved May 29, 1977, and without then and there having complied with the provisions of that act, and under this charge the prosecution should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant A. B. did, within eighteen months prior to the finding of the indictment, prescribe for the sick while publicly professing to be a physician, or that he did append to his name the letters "M. D.," a conviction must necessarily follow, unless he should produce his certiflete of the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, his commission as surgeon in the United States army or navy, or prove himself to have so acted under one of the other conditions prescribed in the statute.

Full authority for this conclusion will be found in 1st Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 79. and in the decisions of the courts hereinafter cited, in which the license to practice a profession or to transact other classes of business is classed in the same general category with prosecutions for selling liquor, in which cases it devolves upon the person accused to show that he has the authority to sell, or to do the act charged.

In support of the conclusions herein reached, and for the use of courts in which suits may arise involving the above questions, I refer to the following authorities:

State v. Gazlay, 5 Ohio, 14; Mobile v. Yuille, 3 Ala., 137; Cousins v. State, 50 Ala., 113; Goldthwaite . Montgomery, Id., 486: MeKaskell v. State. 53 Ala., 510; Simmons v. State, 12 Mo., 268: Cohen c. Wright, 22 Cal.,322; Ex parte Yale, 24 Cal., 241; Ex parte Spinney, 10 Nev., 323: Louisiana e. King, 21 La. Ann., 201; Porter & Co. v. State, 58 Ala., 66; Languille v. State, 4 Tex. App., 312; Antle v. State, 6 Tex. App., 202; State v. Goldman. 44 Texas, 104; State v. Havne, 4 S. C., 403; Wheat v. State, 6 Mo., 455; Schmidt e. State, 14 Mo., 137; State v. Hale, 15 Mo., 607; State v. Richeson et al., 15 Mo., 575; Ford v. Simmons, 13 La. Ann., 397; Sheldon v. Clark, 1 Johns., 513; Timmerman . Morrison, 14 Johns., 369; Kane v. Johnson, 9 Bosw. (N. Y.). 151; Great Western R. R. Co. v. Bacon, 39 Ill., 347; Gunnarssohn e. Sterling, 92 Ill., 569.

From an examination of these authorities, it appears beyond controversy that the authority exists in the Legislature to require that a license shall be obtained to practice any profession, or follow any pursuit in which dealings are had with the general public; and that any conditions the Legislature choose to attach to the obtaining of the license or the pursuit of the business of a general character, are legal, and if a charge be made that any person is pursuing the business or profession required by the law to be licensed or pursued under certain conditions, it devolves upon the person charged to prove that he is licensed, or is pursuing the business under one of the conditions named in the law. Evidence of Want of Authority to Practice.

In answer to certain other specific questions submitted, I would say that there is no statute of the State which makes a certificate of the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH under the seal of the BOARD evidence that a given individual is not authorized to practice medicine.

The only certificate authorized by the statute to be issued by the BOARD is a certiflcate that the person's diploma is genuine, and from a legally-chartered medical institution in good standing, or that he has been examined and found qualifled to practice medicine.

The STATE BOARD OF HEALTH is such a public office as that certificates of its records. duly authenticated by the seal of the BOARD, could be used as evidence, if the Legislature had provided that any record should be kept by said BOARD. But it not having so provided, a copy purporting to be a copy of its records would not be evidence, no matter how authenticated. Hence the certificates issued by the BOARD under the law are the only evidences of authority from the BOARD.

The law does not specify how a certificate may be revoked, but simply authorizes the revocation for unprofessional or dishonorable conduct In such cases the ordinary method would be deemed the proper one, viz: that the BOARD should pass a resolution revoking the certificate-a copy of which resolution, under the seal of the BOARD, should be served upon the person holding the certificate, and another certified copy, with proof of service, would be evidence of the revocation in any court.

The STATE BOARD to Determine the "Good Standing" of Colleges.

To your final query-to-wit: Is the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH Vested with discretionary power to determine what constitutes a "legally-chartered medical institution in good standing." I reply that it is a universal rule of construction of statutes that the whole law must be construed and taken together. It is, therefore, not proper to take any single section, clause or sentence, and construe that alone; but all the statute should be construed and read as one act.

The first section of the law regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois, passed May 29, 1877, declares that every person practicing medicine in this State shall possess one of the qualifications required by the act. If he is a graduate in medicine, he shall present his diploma to the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, who shall certify to its genuineness; and this certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the right of the holder to practice medicine in this State. This section vests the BOARD OF HEALTH With no discretionary power, except to determine whether the diploma is genuine or not; and if genuine, and presented by the proper person, it is conclusive.

But Sec. 3, of the same act, defining more in detail the duties of the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH When such a BOARD shall be established, declares that the BOARD shall issue certificates to all who shall furnish satisfactory proof of having received diplomas or licenses from legally-chartered medical institutions in good standing." etc. By this section the BOARD are not compelled to issue certificates, unless a diploma or license is presented to them, and it must also be from a "legally-chartered medical institution," and such institution must be also one "in good standing."

The STATE BOARD is Judge of the Facts.

Necessarily, the BOARD OF HEALTH must determine both of these facts primarily. They can not issue the certificate unless the diploma is from a "legally-chartered medical institution." nor unless this is one "in good standing." The BOARD OF HEALTH must necessarily be the judges of both of these facts in the first instance, and this section must be read and construed in connection with the first section, so that both shall stand if possible. It is also a rule of construction that, if it be possible, all parts of a law must be reconciled, so that no sentence or parts of a sentence shall be rendered null or of no force. This can be easily done in this case by reading in the first section the further conditions placed in the third, as follows: "That every person practicing medicine, in any of its departments, shall possess the qualifications required by this act. If a graduate in medicine he shali present his diploma, from a legally-chartered medical institution in good standing. to the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH." etc. This reading would not conflict with anything already in the first section, and would be simply a reading authorized by the whole act, and in accord with its spirit throughout.

I have no doubt that the STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, when a diploma is presented to them for certification, have a right under this law to determine whether the diploma is issued by a "legally-chartered medical institution" or not; and also a right to determine whether it is from one "in good standing" or not; and if it lacks either of these qualifications, I believe it to be the duty of the BOARD to refuse the certificate. This accords also with the spirit and purpose of the act, which, as before said, is intended to protect the health and lives of the public against unqualified persons, which could not effectively be done if diplomas from colleges that did not pretend to give a complete medical education were alone sufficient authority to practice. If this were permitted, the law could be made entirely valueless as a protection."

Very truly yours,

JAMES MCCARTNEY, Attorney-General.

Office Correspondence.

As was to be expected, the action of the BCARD on the subject of Medical Education has given rise to many letters of inquiry, suggestion and comment. A large number of applications for information concerning the status of colleges, both in Illinois and elsewhere, have been received and answered; as well as concerning the professional status of individuals. Those concerning colleges are mainly from students, inquiring as to the value of the diplomas of specified colleges as bases for certificates entitling their possessors to practice in this State. Such inquiries have been answered, generally, by furnishing the student with a copy of the Schedule of our Minimum Requirements, and recommending him to make, for himself, a comparison of this with the curriculum of study and qualifications required by the college in question.