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 turpitude 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.*7 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 
44 Berry v. State (Tex.), 135 Chenowith v. State Bd. of Med. 
S. W. 631. Exrs., 57 Col. 74, 141 Pace. 132. 
45 Thompson v. Von Lear, 77 47 Hawker v. New York, 170 
Ark. 506. U.S. 189. 
46 Foreman v. State Bd. of 48 Board of Med. Exrs. v. 
Health (Ky.), 162 8. W. 796; Eisen, 123 Pac. 52, 61 Ore. 492. 
