Changes

Before the bill was passed, the legislature engaged in a lively debate about the bill and numerous amendments were proposed in an attempt to radically alter it before its passage. The biggest debate centered around which existing physicians would be automatically licensed under the law. The bill originally proposed that physicians who had practiced in the state for twenty years could apply for a license if they could get two recommendations from other physicians who were in good standing. There were several attempts to reduce the number of years those physicians practiced in the state. Initially, the author of the bill rejected a proposal to reduce the number from twenty to fourteen years, but a later amendment changed the twenty-year requirement to only five years. This undoubtedly helped the law pass the legislature, because far more physicians from the three sects would have supported this law. The legislature would have struggled to pass this law without adopting this significant change.<ref> “Consideration of Medical Bills,” <i>Sacramento Daily Union</i>, Volume 2, Number 22, March 17, 1876, 1.</ref>

The Sacramento Daily Union generally supported the passage of the state licensing law, but its editors expressed a few misgivings. The Union was concerned that the provision requiring itinerant physicians to pay one-hundred dollars a month was potentially unconstitutional, but the Union still supported the measure because it attacked that “class of swindlers.” Still, the editors were concerned that this provision explicitly discriminated against a “class of strangers” and could be undone by the courts. The editors for the Union hoped this would be avoided because the law potentially would alleviate the antagonism among the three major sects.<ref> “The Medical Practice Act,” <i>Sacramento Daily Union</i>, Volume 2, Number 31, March 28, 1876, 2.</ref> The medical sects also were pleased with the law and quickly sought to enact its provisions.