MEDICAL LEGISLATION
Mr. Yancey's bill [S. 74--see pages 208, 212, and 216 of these reports] to regulate the practice of medicine, being read the third time--
Mr. YANCEY, referring to the discussion already had on this bill, considered it unnecessary to say more than that the people of the State are desiring the passage of the bill.
Mr. HENRY objected to the way Section 6 was drafted. Since the action on that section he had received a communication from the Secretary of a County Medical Association, in which the bill is characterized as a fraud, and having taken some pains to inquire, was satisfied that three-fourths of the physicians of the State were objecting to its passage. He also referred to a letter stating that every physician in the County from which the letter comes had contracts with druggists to divide receipts on their prescriptions.
Mr. SPANN, in good faith, offered an amendment to the bill the other day which would have covered a large class of quacks, but his motives were impugned, nad it was charged the amendment was offered in order to kill the bill. In almost every town every few days quacks appear, heralded by flaming bills and advertisements, and when an amendment was offered requiring them to go before a Board of Examiners to get a permit to practice their specialties, the friends of the bill voted it down. They should be included among those required to apply for a certificate of qualification.
Mr. SHAFFER--Admitting this is not such a bill as the medical profession desire, nor as perfect a bill as the people want, yet he hoped it would be passed in its present shape, and if it should be found not to work well, in two years from now it can be amended.
The bill passed by yeas, 29; nays, 17--as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Bell, Benz, Bischowski, Brown, Bundy, Compton, Foster, Hefron, Howard, Hutchinson, Kramer, Langdon, Lockridge, Macartney, Menzies, Owen, Rahm, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Traylor, Urmston, Van Vorhis, Viehe, White, Wilson, Woollen and Yancey--29.
Nays--Messrs. Briscoe, Chapman, Coffey, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Garrigus, Grubbs, Henry, Hostetter, Keiser, Leeper, Marvin, Poindexter, Smith, Spann and Voyles--17.
Pending the roll call on the passage of the bill--
Mr. CHAPMAN said he did not believe in the theory of the bill, and saw several very imperfect provisions in it. He voted "no."
Mr. DAVIS, when his name was called, said: If the doctors were agreed on it, I should vote to support this bill; but the old saying is true that doctors do not always agree. As I do not believe a man should be compelled by law to employ a certain class of physicians, I vote "no."
Mr. FOSTER, simply because this bill does not come up to his expectations, should not oppose it. He did not think the doctors had pushed this thing through the Senate, but believe the people desired it.
Mr. GARRIGUS, for an opposite reason, believing there is no call for such legislation as this, would vote against it. It is a pernicious kind of legislation; it is a class legislation. If we pass such a law for doctors, we should pass one for dentists, and for preachers, and for lawyers, for farmers and for every particular class or profession. If the principle is right, we ought to establish a protectorate over every particular class of business. Having opposed sucha measure two years ago, since which time never having heard man, woman or child speak in favor of it, but having heard many speak against it, he voted "no."
Mr. KEISER, when his name was called, said; I would like to vote for this bill if I could conscientiously do so. While I do not believe there is any great demand, or a hue or cry from the people at large for a medical bill, I have no doubt that one well guarded and properly digested would be of benefit to the people of the State. This bill has some objectionable features, which forces me to vote against it, and as far as I can learn from the practicing physicians in my County and District, they are not in favor of this bill. Therefore I vote "no."
Mr. TRAYLOR, when his name was called, said he did not look at this bill as being in favor of doctors, but rather a lick at them; and, believng it is intended for the public good voted "aye."
Mr. VOYLES, when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my vote. I did not antagonize the measure by a speech. I now desire to say that if the provisions of the bill would conduce mainly to bringing the medical standard up to the level occupied by the author of this bill--the Senator from Hancock--I would support the bill, if for no other reason, on account of personal compliment to the honorable Senator, but as I have no great or exalted opinion of the proposition, and being opposed to carrying sumptuary laws too far into the business affairs of our State, I shall not vote for the bill. Having thus given the author of the bill a quantum sufficit of'taffy," I proceed to vote "no."
So the bill passed.
