PRACTICE OF VETERINARY SURGERY 61 



the resulting lumps of soap which the patient 

 passed he pronounced to be gall stones. The revo- 

 cation of his license was sustained.^^ An act for- 

 bidding physicians to solicit patients by paid 

 agents was upheld as a valid use of police power 

 in Arkansas.^^ While the Kentucky statute pro- 

 vides for the revocation of a physician's license 

 for unprofessional conduct, the context shows 

 that there must be moral turpitude, and an adver- 

 tisement is not sufficient ground for revocation of 

 license unless it involves moral tuipitude and 

 fraud.*^ The New York statute provides for the 

 revocation of the license of a physician who had 

 been convicted of crime, and the Supreme Court 

 of the United States upheld the revocation of one 

 Hawker, who had been convicted nine years be- 

 fore.^'^ Since this revocation is essentially in the 

 nature of criminal punishment, it is not sufficient 

 that the board believe that the man is guilty, but 

 the evidence must show that he is in fact guilty.^ ^ 

 The statute, in providing for the revocation of 

 license to practice, should prescribe, not only for 

 what cause this penalty should be inflicted, but 

 also, how the revocation should be made. It would 

 seem, in order to comply with the provision 

 relative to ' ' due process of law, ' ' that formal no- 

 tice of the charges made should be given to the 

 holder of the license, either by mail or by personal 



"Berry v. State (Tex.), 135 Chenowith v. State Bd. of Med. 



S. W. 631. Exrs., 57 Col. 74, 141 Pae. 132. 



45 Thompson v. Von Lear, 77 ^t Hawker v. New York, 170 



Ark. 506. U. S. 189. 



40 Foreman v. State Bd. of 48 Board of Med. Exrs. v. 



Health (Ky.), 162 S. W. 796; Eisen, 123 Pac. 52, 61 Ore. 492. 



