It is well settled that the General Assembly has the right to require an examination and certificate as to competence of persons desiring to practice medicine. State v. Call, 121 N.C. 474 [ 121 N.C. 643], 28 S.E. 517 (1897). It is in no sense the creation of a monopoly or special privilege.

It is within the power of the legislature to enact such laws as will protect the people from ignorant pretenders, and secure them the services of reputable, skilled and learned men." In State v. Call, (North Carolina,) 28 S.E. 517: "To require this is an exercise of the police power for the protection of the public against incompetents and impostors, and is in no sense the creation of a monopoly or special privileges. The door stands open to all who possess the requisite age and good character, and can stand the examination which is exacted of all applicants alike."

That court has long been deferential toward professional regulations, regularly upholding professional licensing requirements.See State v. Warren , 252 N.C. 690, 114 S.E.2d 660, 666 (1960) (real estate brokers); Roach v. City of Durham , 204 N.C. 587, 169 S.E. 149, 151 (1933) (plumbers); State v. Lockey , 198 N.C. 551, 152 S.E. 693, 696 (1930) (barbers); State v. Siler , 169 N.C. 314, 84 S.E. 1015, 1016 (1915) (doctors); St. George v. Hardie , 147 N.C. 88, 60 S.E. 920, 923 (1908) (riverboat pilots); State v. Hicks , 143 N.C. 689, 57 S.E. 441, 442–43 (1907) (dentists); State v. Call , 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517, 517 (1897) (doctors). The state high court has twice upheld the ban on corporate law practice.

The Court finds more persuasive, however, two century-old opinions of the North Carolina Supreme Court, which upheld the state's power to regulate two other professions against challenges that those regulatory schemes violated the Monopoly Clause. In the first, State v. Call , 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517 (1897), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the state's regulation of the medical profession, as applied to an individual who was indicted for practicing without a license, did not violate the Monopoly Clause. Call , 28 S.E. at 517.

The Board's authority to regulate the practice of medicine creates no unconstitutional monopoly. See State v. Call, 121 N.C. 643, 646, 28 S.E. 517, 517 (1897); State v. Howard, 78 N.C. App. at 266, 337 S.E.2d at 601. VI.

Under this rule the Legislature may exempt persons from the requirements of a professional registration statute who have been engaged in the lawful practice of the profession in the state before its passage. State v. Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517; Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Charpentier, 140 La. 405, 73 So. 248. Other exceptions and exemptions contained are likewise valid under the same reasoning. The respondent concedes that he has never been registered under the act as a professional architect.

In this connection the classification applies with equal force to all members within the classification. Motley v. Barber Examiners, 228 N.C. 337, 45 S.E.2d 550; State v. Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517. A physician or surgeon takes a patient as of the time the relationship is established.

The majority opinion does not discuss classification, but the general tenor of the opinion is consistent with that principle stated in the concurring opinion. For a few of the cases in this jurisdiction clearly applying the classification principle see: Finance Co. v. Currie, Comr., ante, 129, 118 S.E.2d 543; Lilly Co. v. Saunders, supra; Roach v. Durham, 204 N.C. 587, 169 S.E. 149; State v. Lockey, 198 N.C. 551, 152 S.E. 693; State v. Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517. The other cases particularly cited and relied on by the defendants are not pertinent to the instant controversy.

In re Russo (Ohio 1958), 150 N.E.2d 327, 331. There are professions and occupations so affected with the public interest as to warrant their regulation for the public good. Roller v. Allen, supra. More than fifty professions and occupations are regulated by statute in North Carolina. 17 N.C. Law Review 1. Cases dealing with some of these are: Roach v. Durham, 204 N.C. 587, 169 S.E. 149 (plumbing and heating); State v. Scott, 182 N.C. 865, 109 S.E. 789 (accountants); State v. Siler, 169 N.C. 314, 84 S.E. 1015 (chiropractic and suggesto-therapy); State v. Hicks, 143 N.C. 689, 57 S.E. 441 (dentistry); State v. Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517, and State v. Van Doran, 109 N.C. 864, 14 S.E. 32 (physicians); Ex Parte Schenck, 65 N.C. 353, (lawyers). Two former enactments of our General Assembly designed to regulate real estate business were declared unconstitutional.

But they can do much good in restraining mass inroads on individual liberty until those inroads have proved themselves inevitable.' Without doubt there are professions and occupations so affected with the public interest as to warrant their regulation for the public good. S. v. Warren, 211 N.C. 75, 189 S.E. 108; Roach v. Durham, 204 N.C. 587, 169 S.E. 149; S. v. Lockey, 198 N.C. 551, 152 S.E. 693; S. v. Scott, 182 N.C. 865, 109 S.E. 789; S. v. Siler, 169 N.C. 314, 84 S.E. 1015; S. v. Hicks, 143 N.C. 689, 57 S.E. 441; S. v. Call, 121 N.C. 643, 28 S.E. 517; S. v. Van Doran, 109 N.C. 864, 14 S.E. 32; Ex Parte Schenck, 65 N.C. 353. On the other hand, "A state cannot under the guise of protecting the public arbitrarily interfere with private business or prohibit lawful occupations or impose unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on them."