58 
Editorial. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharmr 
Jan.,  1879. 
this  6tate  applied  to  the  wound  by  means  of  a  cloth.  The  mother  and  a  neighbor 
on  the  contrary  testified  that  verbal  directions  for  the  application  of  the  solution, 
but  not  for  its  previous  dilution,  were  given.  At  7  P.  M.,  the  boy  became  uncon- 
scious ;  later  in  the  evening  and  during  the  night  the  doctor  was  sent  for,  but  did 
not  visit  the  patient  until  about  7  o'clock  the  next  morning,  when  he  met  Dr. 
Schorse  who  had  in  the  meantime  been  summoned.  The  patient  died  at  1  o'clock 
the  same  afternoon.    The  Coroner's  jury  returned  the  following  verdict: 
First — That  Helmuth  Hartmann  came  to  his  death  through  the  excessive  use  of 
carbolic  acid  prescribed  by  Dr.  Grasttinger  in  treatment  of  a  very  slight  wound 
inflicted  by  a  dog. 
Second — The  jury  in  this  case  find  that  Dr.  Graettinger  committed  a  criminal 
offence  in  not  writing  directions  for  the  use  of  the  medicine  prescribed  by  him,  as  he 
was  well  aware  of  the  poisonous  nature  of  the  same,  and  in  not  responding  to  two 
successive  calls  during  the  night — not  even  when  he  was  told  that  the  patient  was  in 
a  very  dangerous  condition.  • 
Revoking  a  Physician's  Certificate.— At  the  October  term  of  the  Cook  Circuit 
Court,  State  of  Illinois,  an  interesting  decision  was  rendered  by  Hon.  E.  S. 
Williams,  in  a  case  which  will  probably  be  a  precedent  for  similar  cases  also  in 
other  States,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  seems  to  be  also  applicable  to  the  pharmacy 
laws  which  have  been  recently  enacted  in  several  States. 
A  State  Board  of  Health,  consisting  of  seven  persons  appointed  by  the  Governor,, 
was  created  for  the  State  of  Illinois,  by  Act  of  May  29,  1877.  The  law  contains  the 
following  sections  : 
"  Sec.  10.  The  State  Board  of  Health  may  refuse  certificates  to  individuals  guilty 
of  unprofessional  or  dishonorable  conduct,  and  they  may  revoke  certificates  for  like 
causes."  Section  13  provides  for  the  punishment  of  any  person  practicing  medicine 
or  surgery  in  this  State  without  complying  with  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  except 
that  it  exempts  from  the  operation  of  the  law  all  persons  who  "  have  been  practicing 
medicine  ten  years  within  this  State." 
The  nature  of  the  complaint  in  the  case  of  Nathan  J.  Aikin  us.  State  Board  of 
Health,  and  the  remedy  sought  before  the  court,  are  explained  in  the  following  sen- 
tence, with  which  the  learned  judge  opens  his  decision  : 
"This  bill  is  filed  by  complainant,  alleging  that  he  is  a  duly-licensed  practicing 
physician  in  the  city  of  Chicago  5  that  he  was  regularly  educated  as  a  physician, 
graduated  at  the  Cincinnati  College  of  Medicine  and  Surgery  in  18655  and  that  in 
July  last  a  certificate  was  also  issued  to  him  by  the  State  Board  of  Health  as  such 
physician,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  5  that  his  practice  is  of  great  value 
to  him  5  that  while  holding  said  certificate  he  has  received  from  the  State  Board  of 
Health  a  notice  that  said  Board  threatened  to  revoke  his  license  5  that  the  alleged 
cause  of  such  revocation  is  the  publication  by  complainant  of  divers  professional 
notices  in  divers  public  newspapers,  which  notices  are  set  out  in  full  in  complainant's 
bill  ;  that  the  proposed  action  of  the  Board  of  Health  originates  from  the  fact  of 
the  publication  of  these  printed  notices  by  complainant,  which  conduct  said  Board 
alleges  to  be  unprofessional  and  dishonorable,  but  which  complainant  claims  is 
neither  dishonorable  nor  unprofessional  within  the  meaning  of  the  statutes,  and  com- 
plainant denies  the  right  of  the  State  Board  to  revoke  his  license  for  any  such  cause, 
and  prays  for  an  injunction  restraining  such  proposed  action  upon  the  part  of  the 
State  Board  of  Health." 
We  have  not  the  room  to  give  even  an  abstract  of  the  judge's  review  of  the  law, 
his  legal  explanations  and  the  citing  of  analogous  cases,  by  which  he  arrived  at  con- 
clusions adverse  to  the  complainant's  argument  and  prayer  ;  we  merely  give  the 
concluding  paragraph,  which  appears  to  us  to  be  of  more  general  importance  than 
the  remaining  portion  of  his  decision. 
