upon the rights intended to be reserved by the people.

From the principles stated above, it may be said of any State law that it is constitutional, if the power exercised in its enactment is legislative in its nature, and is not among those conferred upon the federal government by the Constitution of the United States, nor among those reserved to the people by the State constitution.

Dent v. West Virginia (129 U. S. 114, 9 Supp. Ct. Rep. 231, 32 L. Ed. 623, 11 U. S. Notes 684) is a typical and leading case among those which have arisen out of the laws under consideration. It involves the validity of the statute of West Virginia "which requires every practitioner of medicine in it to obtain a certificate from the State Board of Health that he is a graduate of a reputable Medical College in the school of medicine to which he belongs." Although this case arose under the statute regulating the practice of medicine, yet the constitutional questions raised are exactly the same as those which arise in the consideration of cases under the prevailing statutes relating to pharmacy.

In this case it was urged on behalf of the defendant physician, "that this statute by forfeiting his right to continue in the practice of his profession: (1) destroys his vested rights and deprives him of the estate he has acquired in his profession by years of study, practice, diligence

and attention: (2) deprives him of the benefit of an established reputation as a practitioner: (3) depreciates, destroys, and hence deprives him of the value of his invested capital in books, medicines and instruments." Upon this showing as to loss of valuable property interests, counsel maintained that the statute was repugnant to the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Mr. Justice Field presented the opinion of the Court, in the course of which he said, "Here all vocations are open to every one on like conditions." "The interest, or, as it is sometimes termed, the estate acquired in them, that is, the right to continue their prosecution, is often of great value to the possessors, and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them, any more than their real or personal property can be thus taken. But there is no arbitrary deprivation of such right when its exercise is not permitted because of a failure to comply with conditions imposed by the State for the protection of society. The power of the State to provide for the general welfare of the people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as, in its judgment, will secure or tend to secure them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud.

As one means to this end it has been the

practice of different States, from time immemorial, to exact in many pursuits a certain degree of skill and learning upon which the community may confidently rely, their possession being generally ascertained upon an examination of parties by competent persons, or inferred from a certificate to them in the form of a diploma or license from an institution established for instruction on the subject, scientific and otherwise, with which such pursuits have to deal. The nature and extent of the qualifications required must depend primarily upon the judgment of the State as to their necessity. If they are appropriate to the profession or calling, and attainable by reasonable study or application, no objection to their validity can be raised because of their stringency or difficulty."

"It is sufficient for the purpose of this case, to say that legislation is not open to the charge of depriving one of his rights without due process of law, if it be general in its operation upon the subjects to which it relates, and is enforceable in the usual modes established in the administration of government with respect to kindred matters; that is by process or proceedings adapted to the nature of the case."

"There is nothing of an arbitrary character in the provisions of the statute in question; it applies to all physicians, except those who may be called for a special case from another State; it

imposes no condition which cannot be readily met, and it is made enforceable in the mode usual in kindred matters, that is, by regular proceedings adapted to the case. It authorizes an examination of the applicant by the Board of Health, as to his qualifications when he has no evidence of them in the diploma of a reputable medical college in the school of medicine to which he belongs, or has not practiced in the State a designated period before March, 1887."1

These extracts from the opinion rendered in Dent vs. West Virginia possess the clearness, simplicity, and scientific directness that are wont to characterize the expressions of the great jurist who wrote them; and the principles therein outlined are admirably expressive of the constitutional status of the laws under discussion.

In a Minnesota case arising under the statutes of that State regulating the practice of dentistry, the court declares that the power of legislatures to prescribe reasonable conditions, upon which professions may be practiced, rests upon the right to protect the public from injurious consequences likely to result from allowing persons to practice those professions, who do not possess qualifica

1 Dent v. West Virginia 129 U. S. 114, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231, 32 L. Ed. 623, 11 U. S. Notes 684; see also Eastman v. State, 109 Ind. 278, 58 Am. Rep. 400, 10 N. E. 97; Orr v. Meek, 111 Ind. 40, 11 N. E. 787; Brown v. People, 11 Colo. 109, 17 Pac. 104; State v. Creditor, 44 Kan. 565, 21 Am. St. Rep. 306, 24 Pac. 346; Limitations on Public Power, Tiedman, Sec. 87; Hewitt v. Charier, 16 Pick. 353; Spaulding v. Alford, 1 Pick. 33; Wright v. Lanckton, 19 Pick. 288; Cooly Const. Lim. 745.

tions essential to the safety of those who employ them. In rendering his opinion, the judge said "That, in the exercise of that power, the legislature may require, as a condition of the right to practice, that the person shall procure a license; may designate some office or board to issue a license, and to determine whether an applicant possesses the qualifications required to entitle him to it; and may prescribe, so far as can be done by a general law, what qualifications shall be required, and how the possession of them by the applicant shall be ascertained, necessarily follows from the power itself."1

This Minnesota case was ended in the State courts, and it does not appear from the opinion whether it was contested on the ground of repugnance to the constitution of the United States or on the theory that the act of the legislature was an exercise of power which had not been granted to the State but was reserved to the people themselves.

An Indiana case, decided in 1887, reaffirms, in general, the doctrine laid down by Mr. Justice Field in Dent v. West Virginia, and deals specially with the matter of exceptions, occurring in some States, to the general operation of the statutes. To the general provision requiring physicians to procure a license, etc., an exception in favor of those who had practiced medicine a des1 State v. Vandersluis, 42 Minn. 129, 43 N. W. 789, 6 L. R. A.