A State Bill of Rights is intended to accord strictly with the Constitution of the United States, which vouchsafes to the individual "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Whatever else may be included under the name liberty, the right of choosing one's own religion and medicine is generally acknowledged as an essential provision. The State, therefore, has no right to dictate the sort of religion a man shall cherish or the sort of medicine he shall take, neither has it a right to interfere with a contract between two sane persons whereby it is provided that one shall give of his religion or medicine to the other.

But a question may arise regarding the ability of a contractor to keep his agreement, and this question is the basis for what is technically called regulation. There is a plausible reason for regulating the practice of medicine, since it involves a wise discrimination in the use of drugs. The practitioner should know the difference between the effects of calomel and arsenic. Furthermore, a surgeon must be thoroughly versed in anatomy, and before being allowed to enter upon the grave responsibilities of his office it is proper that he be required to know the difference between amputating the head and amputating the toe. But prayers necessitate no such regulation as the practice of medicine and surgery, for it is quite popularly conceded that they do no harm though it may be argued by skeptics that they do no good.

If, on any asserted grounds, the State should assume the responsibility of granting individual license to pray, it should at least observe the doctrine of equal right to all her citizens. All Christians pray for the sick; some accompany their prayers with drugs because their prayers are found inadequate, while Christian Scientists find their prayers preclude any necessity for drugs. There should be no discrimination against the prayers of Christian Scientists, on the basis that they are of a quality to insure an answer or that they heal sickness as well as sin. A prayer which destroys bodily ills is no more dangerous and no more in need of regulation than a prayer which overcomes sin only. Therefore, if a law exists which provides that Christian Scientists must be examined as to their qualifications to pray for others, this same law should be applied to all other praying people, and not only our good clergymen, but all laymen, should be required to obtain a State license before entertaining a desire or prayer that God shall guide, sustain, protect, and heal their neighbors.

Moreover, to assume or elect that Christian Scientists Scientists are subject to a license system because they accept a fee for the time consumed in the service of another, seems unjustifiable, since neither the acceptance nor the non-acceptance of a fee affects the merits of their prayers. If the practice of Christian Science is right, the acceptance of a fee therefor will not make it wrong. If, on the other hand, the practice is wrong, the non-acceptance of a fee will not make it right; therefore, to forbid the acceptance of a fee must be construed as a way of forbidding the practice. The acceptance of a fee is entirely independent both of medical practice and of Christian Science practice and, as in the case of ordinary labor, is dependent upon custom, the value of time expended and the service rendered. If the ministers of other denominations were compelled to preach and pray without a fee, how many of them would continue? The license system is adopted for the purpose of guarding against malpractice, while the payment or acceptance of a fee is based upon a legitimate contract between two individuals, a contract with which the State has no right to interfere.

An intelligent conclusion as to the propriety of Christian Science practice should in no case be influenced by public opinion, but should involve: First, a due consideration of the efficacy of Christian Science as a healing remedy; and second, the individual practitioner's understanding and ability to apply the Science.

The Christian Science movement does not wait for any action on the part of the State, but regulates its own recognized practitioners and teachers by requiring them to acquire certain qualifications. These qualifications, however, do not include a knowledge of physical diagnosis and materia medica, since neither of these is requisite to the practice of Christian Science. However, every man, woman, and child who is believer Christian Science is a practitioner, though not specially set apart for the ministry, for to practise Christian Science means no more nor less than to put into practice one's understanding of Truth and right. To practise Christian Science is to think rightly on all subjects. Bodily healing is the result of right thinking. A medical course requiring three or four years' study would not be of the slightest benefit to the prayers of Christian Scientists; therefore, to demand a medical education is unjust and useless. It has no office except to confront Christian Scientists with a barrier doubtless intended to be too formidable for them to surmount.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio states; "Legislation prohibiting any one from treating a disease for a fee, excepting such persons as have prescribed qualifications, is a valid exercise of the police power of the State and is constitutional." Consistent with this conclusion, to acquire and maintain such "qualifications" as are fit to be "prescribed," a Christian Scientist needs to devote all his time and attention to the practice, and would thus be debarred from earning a livelihood in other vocations; therefore, a law prohibiting the acceptance of a fee militates against proficient "qualifications" and is like "a house divided against itself." A law pretending to regulate the practice of medicine and containing such provisions as apply only to the practice of medicine, and yet at the same time so formed or constructed as to apply to practice which does not at all concern medicine, is nothing less than a deception, and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

While a given law is intended to regulate practitioners, it is also intended to grant and protect certain rights and privileges. A law intended to regulate a certain practice may justly apply only to that class of practitioners for which it provides. If it provides only for M.D's., it can regulate only M.D.'s. If the Ohio law is so limited in its provisions as not to afford any privileges to Christian Scientists, and yet at the same time curtails the rights of Christian Scientists, it is partial and amounts to class legislation, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. If the framers of this law had it in mind to grant to medical practitioners rights and privileges which they did not vouchsafe to Christian Scientists, they, in this respect, violated the privilege of equal rights, and the law is, therefore, unconstitutional. Even though the law unintentionally discriminates against Christian Scientists without also making due provisions for their rights, it is none the less unconstitutional.

Since every consistent Christian Scientist is my duty bound to help his neighbor in time of trouble, and must be ready to cure his bodily ills when called upon so to do, any stipulations which prevent him from doing this freely and effectually are an interference with his religious practice and are, therefore, unconstitutional.

The argument that Christian Scientists need to understand diagnosis in order to practise safely, is based upon erroneous assumption. Christian Scientists do not assume the responsibility of diagnosing disease. They do not assume to know any more or less about contagious diseases than those laymen who depend upon medicine, except in so far as their experience in handling disease may afford them an unusual knowledge of symptoms. They do not take the charge of cases nor advise in their material affairs. They assume no more responsibility, when called to treat and case, than the clergyman who is called to pray with a sick person. When a patient dismisses a medical practitioner and turns to Christian Science he is virtually taking his case out of man's hands and placing it in God's care, and is thus assuming his own responsibility. When Christian Scientists are perplexed with suspicious diseases, their practice is exactly in accord with that of others; they employ a qualified diagnostician. In the case of neglect in this respect they are liable to the same laws to which others are amenable, and claim no special privileges.

It would be quite as unreasonable to require Christian Scientists to pass an examination in materia medica as it would be to require the M.D.'s to pass an examination in Christian Science. If it is proper for the State to require any qualifications from a Christian Scientist, it should require those qualifications which enhance the practice of Christian Science. There is no constitutional to prevent the Christian Scientist from practising within the bounds of that which he professes, and thus far in the history of our country a man's right to practise his religion has never been made contingent upon medical knowledge, nor the question as to whether he was to be compensated for his service. Alfred Farlow.
Boston Times.