Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/330

 316 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

The location at Sixty-second Street was too far from the great social movements of Chicago to be permanent. Conse- quently, Sunday services were again held down-town in the Auditorium for six months from October, 1895. ^ n May, 1896, the homes of healing near Jackson Park were discontinued, and a new one was opened, at Twelfth Street and Michigan Avenue, as Home No. 4. On Washington's birthday in 1897 Tabernacle No. 3 was dedicated in the presence of eight thousand specta- tors in a remodeled church building on Michigan Avenue near Sixteenth Street.

The establishment of the divine healing homes in 1894 brought to conspicuous notice the peculiar feature of the new teaching. The discarding of all medical treatment even in con- tagious cases, and of all surgical help even for broken bones, awakened the distrust of the medical profession and of the state board of health. January n, 1895, Dr. Dowie was summoned by the latter for trial in the police court of Justice Prindeville for violation of the law for licensing physicians by false and fraudulent practices, and by practicing medicine and operating upon patients. The case was dismissed as to the first charge, but judgment was given against him on the second charge. A change of venue was taken to Justice Underwood's court, where the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Before this case was dismissed the city council passed, January 28, 1895, an ordinance concerning hospitals. It was ordained that every hospital must have a permit from the state board of health and a licensed surgeon in charge to be approved by the board. Dr. Dowie refused to file an application blank under this ordinance, on the ground that his healing-houses were not hospitals under the ordinance.

During that year, he says, he was arrested on nearly one hundred warrants, and spent portions of one hundred and twenty- six days in court as a defendant. In June a jury in Justice Quinn's police court gave judgment against him under the hos- pital ordinance. The case was appealed to Judge Burke in the Superior court, who gave a decision against the city. Judge Burke said that for the purposes of the ordinance a hospital is