IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI' 
BE TURN FILED IN BEHALF OF THE STATE BOARD OF 
HEALTH OF MISSOURI BY THE SECRETARY' 
/ y 
DR. GEORGE HOMAN 
IN THE CASE OF 
HATHAWAY v. THE BOARD, ON JUNE 24 1890. 
To the Honorable Supreme Court of the State of Missouri: 
The following statement is respectfully submitted to your 
honorable body in reply to the notification issued June 17, 
1890, commanding the State Board of Health to show cause 
why a certificate has not been issued to James N. Hathaway, 
who made application to the Board for license to pursue the 
practice of medicine, who wras refused such license, and now 
by writ of mandamus seeks to force issuance of such license 
or certificate. 
The Board most respectfully submits the following, to-wit: 
1. The genuineness of the diploma presented by said 
Hathaway, nor the good standing of the school granting it— 
namely, the Dartmouth Medical College of Hanover, in the 
state of New Hampshire—was never questioned by the Board 
and has never at any time been an issue in the case. 
2. The certificate sought by Hathaway was unanimously 
refused by the Board, on July 11, 1889, after a hearing at which he was present, on charges duly preferred, alleging 
unprofessional or dishonorable conduct on his part, consist- 
ing in the habitual publication by him of advertisements in 
the public press of St. Joseph, Missouri, during the year 1889— 
said advertisements being in the opinion of the Board of a 
character that directly tended and were designed to mislead 
and deceive the public, to wrongfully impose on the fears, 
weakness or ignorance of the sick or credulous, and to defraud 
the people by false and impossible claims in regard to the 
treatment of disease. 
The application was renewed by Hathaway at the meet- 
ing of the Board in January, 1890, he being again present in 
person and also represented by counsel, and the application 
was again fully heard and considered, and a certificate refused 
as before, under Section 6878, Revised Statutes of 1889—it 
appearing to the Board that he persisted in the conduct held 
professionally dishonorable and prejudicial to the public; and, 
moreover, was engaged in continuous and willful violation and 
defiance of the law, as shown by his arrest, prosecution and 
conviction in April of this year in this State for illegal prac- 
tice. 
3. In the several hearings had by Hathaway, and in the 
conclusions reached by the Board in regard thereto, the Board 
had advice of the Attorney-General’s office concerning the 
proper construction and application of the section authorizing 
the refusal of certificates to individuals guilty of unprofes- 
sional or dishonorable conduct, and as to the bearing of deci- 
sions of the higher courts relating to such enactments, and 
on the duty and rightful powers of the Board in cases where 
unprofessional or dishonorable conduct is charged against a 
physician. 
4. In their further endeavors to faithfully and impar- 
tially discharge their sworn duty under the law, and strictly 
within the limits of law so far as they were enabled to deter- 
mine them, the members of the Board were guided by the 
light afforded by the decision of your honorable court in the 
Granville case, as found in 83 Mo., paragraphs 3 and 4; by 
decisions rendered in 1885 by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in cases involving the question of unprofessional or dishonor- 
able conduct under a law similar to our own, especially those 
of Edward D. Chapman and E. 0. Feller against the State 
Board of Medical Examiners; by decisions of the Supreme 
Courts of Illinois and Iowa rendered in 1889, affirming the 
constitutionality of medical laws similar to ours, and the com- 
petency of State Boards to refuse or revoke certificates for 
cause duly shown; by the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, in Dent vs. West Virginia, and by the decision 
of the Court of Appeals in England, in Allbutt vs. The Gen- 
eral Council of Medical Education, rendered also last year. 
5. At no time has the Board attempted or assumed to 
forbid to physicians the right to advertise their profession 
and business in the public press, but when such advertise- 
ments were made with evident purpose to solicit and procure, 
wrongfully and fraudulently, patients to submit to medical 
treatment by them, it has been deemed that such matters were 
within the proper cognizance and lawful powers of the Board, 
and action has been taken accordingly in the interest of the 
public, and that some means of such public protection is neces- 
sary is evident from the known fact that the sick and suffering 
—those weakened in body and mind by disease, or imagined 
disease—are of all people most liable to imposition and decep- 
tion, to be deceived by false promises and victimized by 
cunning and designing practitioners, the most unscrupulous of 
this class being not unfrequently those who are well qualified, 
educationally, to practice medicine. 
All of which is respectfully submitted by the Board. 
GEO. HOMAN M D 
Secretary