This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
San Francisco, Sept. 28, 1906.
To the Editor:
—The September 15 issue of your esteemed Journal contains a reply of Dr. Harison, secretary of the Michigan Board of Registration, to Dr. Tait of California (letter September 1), and to Dr. Harvey of Massachusetts (article August 25), both of whom consider that system as either pernicious or dangerous, at least under present conditions.The California statute provides for reciprocity in the discretion of the board of examiners, but the board has thus far remained outside of the reciprocity fold, although often invited to enter. It may interest the profession to know that the reciprocity clause of the California statute was before the Supreme Court of that state in the case, Ex Parte Gerimo, decided on in 1904. Counsel of Gerimo, an ex-judge of the court, attacked the law on the ground of the alleged unconstitutionality of the clause in question. Dr.
Tait WC. Interstate Reciprocity and Frauds in Medical Schools.. JAMA. 1906;XLVII(14):1118. doi:10.1001/jama.1906.02520140054023