The Battle Over Medical Quackery in Early Seattle

SEATTLE, Feb. 2, 1892. To the Editor—The editorial in Monday's issue of the Post-Intelligencer criticising the action of the State Board of Medical Examiners and declaring the medical law unconstitutional, contains so many inaccurate and misleading statements that as a member of said board, I am in justice to myself, forced to reply. You state at the start that if Dr. Powell Reeves had advertised to cure incurable diseases or made statements calculated to deceive, he would have been guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses, and on that ground his license might have been revoked. Then, after a rambling dissertation on the constitutionality of the law, you proceed to say that he was cut out, while others, who advertised their special skill and training in a like manner, were unnoticed. If you can point out to me any of the numerous advertisers of medical business contributing to the support of the Post-Intelligencer or any other paper in this city, who guarantee a cure of the diseases Powell Reeves does, I will be glad to take the steps to begin an action for the revocation of their license. Dr. Reeves' license was revoked because we considered him guilty of dishonorable conduct for advertising to cure valvular disease of the heart and fatty heart. Though I do not wish to criticise your opinion of the constitutionality of the medical law, I must say that if we can judge it by your expressions in a previous editorial relative to the old law, said opinion is unworthy of serious consideration, for you declared that law unconstitutional for the same reasons you do the present one, when the fact is it was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of the territory several years before you delivered your opinion. —A. B. Kibbe, M.D.