cise, unqualified formula. The only conclusion that I can reach, as the result of my studies thus far, is, that it is not safe to draw any conclusion at all. The vital point upon which the whole of Méguin's theory of the fauna of exposed cadavers turns is, that the various insects appear in distinct 'squads' at definite and specific periods of cadaveric decomposition, and that they succeed each other in regular order. This proposition does not, in any particular, apply to the observations here noted."

Brouardel cites the following interesting case26 to show the great variation in the rates of putrefaction under apparently the same conditions: At the time of laying the foundation of the Colonne de Juillet, on the site of the Bastile, there were exhumed a number of bodies that had been buried there five years before. The bodies were those of several of the national guards that had been killed there, all at the same time. They were all buried under the same conditions, but some were reduced to skeletons, with only a few remains of their clothes; others were so well preserved that the features of the face could still be recognized. The difference in the rate of putrefaction we do not know how to explain. We may suppose that they did not all have the same germs of putrefaction in their bodies; but that could hardly be proved.

433. Evidence from freezing point of body fluids. As an aid in determining the period that has elapsed between the time of death and that of the examination, Revensdorf has very recently suggested27 the use of the lowered freezing point of the fluids of the body. He found the freezing point to sink steadily after death; not uniformly all over the body, but, while at different rates in the various regions, yet at a fairly definite rate for any one region. The limitations of the test are great, for it assumes a constant rate of putrefaction, which will hold, as Revensdorf points out, only in cases where the body temperature has remained pretty constant; for instance, where the body has lain in water. Here his work seems to be very accurate. He determines the freezing point of the blood, for instance, at the time of finding the body, and again the next day, the body meanwhile being kept under the same conditions as before. Knowing, then, the rate of fall of the freezing point of the blood, and the freezing point at the time that the body was found, he calculates the time that should have elapsed since the freezing point was that of blood in the living body.

26 Brouardel, La Mort et la Mort Subite, p. 92.

"Revensdorf, Viertljrschr. f. ger. Med., 1903, 3F., 25-26, p. 23.

BOOK IV.

QUESTIONS DISTINCTIVELY LEGAL

BOOK IV.

QUESTIONS DISTINCTIVELY LEGAL.

CHAPTER XIIL

RIGHT TO PRACTISE MEDICINE, SURGERY, ETC.

I. STATE REGULATION OF.

434. Scope of police power generally.

435. Conformity to particular constitutional provisions.
436. Preference between schools.

II. ADMISSION TO PRACTISE.

437. Methods of ascertaining fitness.

438. Powers of boards of examiners generally.

439. Membership in medical societies.

440. Diploma from medical school.

441. Examinations.

442. Previous practice.

443. License from another state.

444. Registration.

445. Locality and duration.

446. Regulation of itinerants.

III. WITHDRAWAL OF RIGHT TO PRACTISE. 447. Revocation of licenses.

448. Expulsion from society.

IV. PROCEDURE OF MEDICAL BOARDS.

449. Methods generally.

450. Review of determination of board.

V. WHAT CONSTITUTES PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.

451. General rules and definitions.

452. Vending medicines or appliances.

453. Holding out as a physician.

454. Action under supervision of another.
455. Acting as specialist.

456. Christian Science.

457. Osteopathy.

VI. PENAL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS.

458. General rules as to unlicensed practice.

459. The information or indictment.

460. Proof.

461. Violation of excise laws.

I. STATE REGULATION OF.

434. Scope of police power generally.-There is an inherent natural right in all persons to practise medicine, in the absence of any restriction by law.1 Since the practice of medicine has to deal with all those subtle and mysterious influences upon which health and life depend, however, it has long been the practice of the different states to require the possession of a certain degree of skill and learning upon which the community may confidently rely, their possession being generally ascertained upon an examination by competent persons, or inferred from the possession of a diploma or license from an institution established for medical instruction.2 The state has the right to determine upon what conditions and under what circumstances its citizens shall be entitled to pursue any vocation. And legislation regarding the practice of medicine, surgery, or dentistry, is a valid exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the public health against the impositions of persons pretending to exercise an art requiring skill, without previous special training.*

'State v. Morrill, 7 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 52; State v. Ottman, 6 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 265; Brooks v. State, 88 Ala. 122, 6 So. 903; State ex rel. Powell v. State Medical Examining Board, 32 Minn. 324, 50 Am. Rep. 575, 20 N. W. 238; Craig v. Medical Examiners, 12 Mont. 203, 29 Pac. 532; Denton v. State, 21 Neb. 446, 32 N. W. 222; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 32 L. ed. 623, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231.

This was so both under the common law and the civil law. State v. Ottman, 6 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 265.

And, in the absence of statutory prohibition, any person may lawfully engage in the practice of dentistry. Robinson v. People, 23 Colo. 123, 46 Pac. 676.

2Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 32 L. ed. 623, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231.

And see Driscoll v. Com. 93 Ky. 393, 20 S. W. 431; Allopathic Medical Examiners v. Fowler, 50 La. Ann. 1357, 24 So. 809.

People v. Fulda, 52 Hun, 65, 4 N. Y. Supp. 945.

Richardson v. State, 47 Ark. 562, 2 S. W. 187; Gosnell v. State, 52 Ark. 228, 12 S. W. 392; Brooks v. State, 88 Ala. 123, 6 So. 902; Ex parte Frazer, 54 Cal. 94; Ex parte Johnson, 62 Cal. 263; Ex parte McNulty, 77 Cal. 164, 11 Am.

St. Rep. 257, 19 Pac. 237; People use of State Bd. of Health v. Blue Mountain Joe, 129 Ill. 370, 21 N. E. 923; State ex rel. Burroughs v. Webster, 150 Ind. 616, 41 L. R. A. 212, 50 N. E. 750; Wil kins v. State, 113 Ind. 514, 16 N. E. 192; Eastman v. State, 109 Ind. 278, 58 Am. Rep. 400, 10 N. E. 97; State v. Creditor, 44 Kan. 565, 21 Am. St. Rep. 306, 24 Pac. 346; Meffert v. State Bd. of Medical Registration, 66 Kan. 710, 72 Pac. 247; Driscoll v. Com. 93 Ky. 393, 20 S. W. 431; Allopathic Medical Examiners v. Fowler, 50 La. Ann. 1358, 24 So. 809; State v. Knowles, 90 Md. 646, 49 L. R. A. 695, 45 Atl. 877; People v. Reetz, 127 Mich. 87, 86 N. W. 396; State ex rel. Powell V. State Medical Examining Board, 32 Minn. 324, 50 Am. Rep. 575, 20 N. W. 238; State v. Vandersluis, 42 Minn. 129, 6 L. R. A. 119, 43 N. W. 789; Craig v. Medical Examiners, 12 Mont. 203, 29 Pac. 532; Gee Wo v. State, 36 Neb. 241, 54 N. W. 513; State v. Buswell, 40 Neb. 159, 24 L. R. A. 68, 58 N. W. 728; Lincoln Medical College v. Poynter, 60 Neb. 228, 82 N. W. 855; State v. Chapman, 69 N. J. L. 464, 55 Atl. 94; Re Roe Chung, 9 N. M. 130, 49 Pac. 952; State v. Call, 121 N. C. 643, 28 S. E. 517; State v. Van Doran, 109 N. C. 864, 14 S. E. 32; France v. State, 57 Ohio St. 1. 47 N. E. 1041; State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St.