! :HaiL'J!S5 &W SPEEDY BINDER -^ Manufactured by GAYLORD BROS. Inc ■ Syracuse, N.Y. Stockton, Calif. VJ> AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT TIIE EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF TIIE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HOMCEOPATHY, AT CINCINNATI, OHIO, JUNE 7th, 1865. BY WM. W. RODMAN, M. D., OF NEW HAVEN, CONN. #** f<+W CHICAGO: JAMESON & MORSE, PRINTERS, 1865. AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE Eighteenth Annual Meeting or the American Institute op Homoeopathy, at Cincinnati. Ohio, June 7tii, 1865, BY WM. W. RODMAE", M. D., OF NEW HAVEN, CONN. OUR POSITION. We meet once more as the American Institute of Homce- opathy. We come to exchange what we have gathered in our several spheres of professional labor. The opportunity is the more precious as it has been unexpectedly delayed. It is five sad years since we parted in Philadelphia. The attentive ear could then catch the murmurs of a coming storm. But we could not realize what was before us. Elements were gathering which were to stain with blood and wash with tears all our land. We thank God for the return of Peace. We may now resume our old associations and greet our colleagues as friends, whether from the jSorth or the South, the East or the West. Peace has its struggles, as well as war. There is a conflict in which we still have a part. Within our profession there is that in progress which is to decide the fate of systems of medical practice. In the history of medicine, this will doubtless stand recorded as a period of transition. Men are changing their theories, their remedies and their attitude towards the rival sys- tems. By steps almost imperceptible, a revolution is taking place. The results will one day startle those who now quietly or fitfully are sleeping through it. I ask you, my colleagues, to unite with me in an endeavor to estimate aright our place in the epoch. 4 The American Institute of Homceopathy. Our Position, with the duties which spring from it, is my theme. I refer to the position which others would assign us, as well as that which we assume for ourselves. They differ widely, and until they can be harmonized, involve a conflict which de- mands energy and discretion. Hitherto the mass of the profession have refused us a recog- nition therein. Toward ourselves, toward our opinions and our practice, they have cherished the feelings and indulged in the language of antipathy and scorn. Much ill feeling has in this way been excited. Those on either side who have fostered it have done wrong. It would seem that the time is at hand when the two parties must come to an amicable understanding of our mutual relations. The exigencies of a common humanity, the force of an enlight- ened public sentiment, to say nothing of loftier motives, must compel us and them to reconsider our relations to each other. The topics to be introduced, I shall treat in a general or cursory manner. A technical and scientific paper, like those which occupy us in our other sessions, would be out of place on this occasion. It is always our duty to be advancing our lines, in every direction, towards the unknown. Like other men, we have our differences on subordinate questions. We study them, we even strive over them. Thus it may be until the facts are all gathered and their relations are all determined. But at this hour we meet as those who agree on certain ascertained principles, which we offer to the acceptance of the world. The place in History, into which a medical system settles. depends on what it teaches on the following topics: First. Pathology. Second. The Materia Medica. Third. Therapeutics. Or first, the characteristics of disease; second, the properties of medicines; and third, the application of the medicine or the remedy to the disease. On each of them we are thought to be wrong, and claim to be right. Annual Address. o First. It is often said that we neglect Pathology: that Homoeopathic physicians take cognizance only of symptoms, and overlook the real character of the disease. There may at times have been some truth in this objection. In the pursuit of one advantage we may not always give to another side its due prominence. But this is not the fault of our system, and admits of correction. Somewhat of that which is called Science, we do not value. But the Homoeopathic physician who needlessly neglects aught that will show in what way the disease he is treating indicates itself, fails of his duty to his principles as well as to his patient. So far from rejecting the aid of Pathology, we believe that all that can be accurately ascertained of the nature of disease, its seat, and its laws, and the changes it produces, ought to be known and made available in practice. This knowl- edge should include the organ affected, and the particular tissue involved, even to the minutest fibre wherein change can be traced; the characteristics of these changes and the order in which they occur; their aggravations and ameliorations and the sympathies which exist with distant organs. We desire to know, in short, every variation from the healthy structure and functions. It is objected to us that we attach too much importance to symptoms. But we include in the symptoms the entire group of morbid phenomena. Everything that can be known of these phenomena, in all their shades and in all their relations, is, or ought to be, of importance to us. Those who pass beyond the limits of ascertained facts, and offer opinions on them, ought to allow us the liberty they take for themselves to accept these or not. But the facts, whether exhibited in the patient before us, or known to exist by pathological or other investigation in similar cases, are each and all adjudged by us as indispensable means to perfect the treatment. But there are speculations or opinions called pathological which we do not always accept. We think they sometimes mis- lead. In the words of our friend Dr. P. P. Wells, "We protest against that teaching which puts effects in the place of causes; which regards the products of morbid action as the disease itself; and views local deposits and changes of tissue as the sum of the C The American Institute of Homwopathy. evil with which we have to do; instead of considering them as it should, only as the partial results of that sum of the modified action of the vital forces, which alone constitute the disease. To regard the peculiar state of Feyer's patches, so generally"found in dissections after death from Typhoid Fever, as the disease itself, is scarce more wise and philosophic than it would be to exalt the sordes on the teeth or the cracks on the tongue and lips to this dignity." If I have rightly viewed and truly stated our position, it will be seen that we claim to be united on what is essential to a correct pathology. On minor topics we are not always agreed. Such differences are to be regretted only when it shall be made to appear that it is best that all men's opinions shall be modeled after one pattern. Second. I turn now to our Materia Medica. This is re- garded by many as one of our most assailable points. It is made up chiefly of phenomena, elicited by experiments on healthy persons. Hence it contains much that seems irrelevant to those whose knowledge of drugs is chiefly due to their effects in disease. To the one side it is a fruitful theme for ridicule. In our view, its place is with those Natural Sciences which honor at once God's creative goodness, and man's faithful industry. We seek to learn what we can from every accessible quarter, of the effects produced by a medicine; what organs, tissues or fibres, its activity is specially exerted upon; what structural changes and functional disturbance it either causes or removes • what effects are produced as the direct result of its action, and what consist, in reaction, from some previous or remote operation • whether the effects are transient, protracted, permanent or in- termittent ; what are the modifications made by dose ao-e sex individual peculiarity, and any other of the many circumstances whose influence may be at once certain and inscrutable__in short, all the effects on every organ, even by the most remote and interchanging sympathies/which are the results of medicinal action, whether morbific or curative, obvious or recondite ouo-ht to be faithfully sought by us. Annual Address. 7 In the year 1840, a class of students of the Materia Medica, was addressed in the following language: " Having selected the subject of experiment, you are first to ascertain its effects upon the human system in health. Try it upon yourselves, upon your friends, upon persons of different age and temperament, beginning with doses which you know to be safe, and gradually increasing till its activity or inertness is evinced. Ascertain its influence upon the brain or nervous system, upon the stomach or bowels, upon the heart as indicated by the pulse, upon the temperature of the body, upon the secretions, and in fine upon all the healthy functions. Note all these effects care- fully, as you observe them, but at the same time, be very cautious not to confound those changes in the system, which may result from mental influences, or from the operation of ordinary or accidental causes, with those which are the genuine product of the medicine. Do not be satisfied with a single trial in each case, but repeat it with varying circumstances, till there can no longer be a doubt of the actual effect produced." I have quoted the language of Dr. George B. Wood, so long the head of the University of Pennsylvania. What, we may ask, has been the result of that teaching? What new medicines have been brought into use by this process ? Where is their record? When these words were uttered, there was hard at work a body of physicians too insignificant to receive a favor- able notice from him, who for years had urged upon others, and themselves used this very method. They have kept at work and have given to the world for its free use, elaborate records of medicines experimented with as Dr. Wood advises. When they offer the symptoms of Rumex, of Apis, of Glonoine, of Zachesis, of Podophyllum, if the record is not a good one, if the symptoms given are not the real effects of those articles, who can tell Avhat are their true symptoms. Pereira says, and even Dr. Wood hardly excels him as medical authority, " that the method re- commended by Homceopathists is the online of ascertaining the pure or pathogenetic effects of medicines." If this is so, where, pray tell us, is the Pathogenesis of Mercury, of Colocynth, of Rhubarb, of Sarsaparilla, if that given by the Homceopathic 8 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. physicians is all jargon, as some say it is ? What answers to these questions does the lapse of twenty-five years enable Dr. Wood's pupils to give ? When the time comes to write dispassionately the history of Homoeopathy, it will be recorded, we doubt not, that while others have, like Dr. Wood, talked about experiments with drugs, Homceopathists alone have carried them out, zealously and successfully. Nor will it be forgotten, that when our experi- ments were starting, their highest authorities left upon record such statements as the following: " That all the attempts which were made to ascertain the properties of the articles of the Ma- teria Medica from hypothetical principles, were of no effect; that experience ought to be the sole guide; and that the only method which promised any success, was to collect from the best sources of information the most authentic facts, and arrange the facts thus obtained in a scientific form." I quote the words of Dr. John Bostock, of Edinburgh, the author of the " History of Medicine.'''' Such was the orthodox method of developing the Materia Medica when our system was in embryo. Third. That which chiefly characterises our position in its relations to other modes of practice, is our Therapeutics. The theory and practice of the orthodox school have changed since Homoeopathy was first announced. To understand this subject, one must take into view the state of medicine at the close of the last century. The laws of disease were not then studied with the purpose of imitating nature's processes. Are they yet so studied % Symptoms were not held as indications of the efforts of nature to excite reaction, and therefore to be co-operated with by the physician, but were regarded as something to be opposed. It would seem to be the aim not to favor the intentions of nature, but to thwart them; not to prescribe mild remedies coin- cident with the line of the disease, thereby mitigatino- as well as shortening its course, but to break up the disease by violent shocks to healthy parts of the system. The course of treatment to which a patient was subjected, would at times have made him sick, if he had been well at the start. Fanciful hypotheses con- Annual Address. !) stantly changing, and often contradictory, made up the orthodox theories. Heroic medicines, compounded in complex methods, aided by manifold disturbing appliances, constituted the practice. Many of these things were so extreme, as to make it difficult to speak of them with that respect which we should desire to accord to them. Bleeding was in vogue every spring and fall. One fash- ionable city practitioner was known to receive one thousand guineas a year for blood-letting alone. It is too soon to estimate the influence which Homoeopathy has had, in the changes which have followed. We have our opinions on this subject. But we must leave to history the task of making up the account and giving the verdict. To us belongs the duty of carrying on the revolution which we find in progress. It is also too soon to make a philosophical, or an exhaustive statement of the Homceopathic principle. While in the process of development, scientific precision may perhaps be only ap- proached. Whether this principle includes all therapeutic truth, whether its powers are the only ones given us by the Infinite to guide us in search of remedies for human maladies, is a question about which men may, for the present, honestly differ. I seek to state, and at the same time to explain: First. What is the Homoeopathic principle. Second. What is the attitude of the parties in regard to it. We know little of the modus operandi of medicines. The stomach rejects the emetic, the bowels void the cathartic, the nerve responds to the irritant, but we do not know how it is that medicines act on the organs. Doubtless they serve as remedies through the reactions of the living tissues against them, and not strictly by any power of their own. We except, of course, such effects as are due to chemical and mechanical agency. In ways which for the most part are inexplicable, medicines modify the vital actions of the organs and tissues, and those, it may be, of the minutest fibre of the living structure. Different medicines arouse the reactions of different parts and in various ways. If a medicine is given in health, and the symptoms thus elicited are carefully noted, under every variety 2 10 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. of dose and circumstance, we obtain the pathogenesis of the medicine. The phenomena thus obtained indicate the organs which the remedy acts upon, show its most striking reactions, and in general, point out the sphere of the agent. Thereafter, when a case of natural disease occurs, in which the same organs are affected, and some at least of the same phenomena appear, we are provided with a remedy which will often excite reaction and lead to health. By some mysterious affinity, it will touch the right spot and give the aid of its stim- ulus to the vital processes. If the dose be large, disturbing effects characteristic of the remedy may be excited. Sometimes an aggravation of the original disease is perceptible, but only when the dose is exces- sive. For the purposes of illustration we cite rhubarb, colocynth, podophyllum, leptandra and mercury, all of which, in varying ways, increase the action of the bowels, yet each of them in turn is useful in diarrhoeas. Opium, narcotic as it is, will at times excite wakefulness. Diuretics may, according to circumstances, cause or relieve affections of the urinary organs. That thus medicines have a tendency to substitute their own reactions for those like them, or in other words to remove dis- ease, characterized by symptoms which the same medicines tend to produce in health, we believe to be a general fact in medicine. We call this principle Homoeopathic. The word is a condensed expression of the similarity between the two sets of symptoms. To what extent this principle is true, is the question, the paramount question between us and the rest of the profession. The evidence bearing upon it, from experience, is at least on one side rapidly cumulative. Of this experience we avow the belief that the world has rarely, if ever, witnessed any results of human effort equal to it in importance. But I do not purpose even to enter upon the discussion of the question thus involved. I shall endeavor to indicate the position of the parties in regard to it. If we were called to a case in which there were but one appreciable symptom, pain in the liver, for example, there are Annual Address. 11 several methods whereby that pain might probably be removed. Homoeopathic physicians do have, and other physicians do not have, a principle which, if followed, will lead to one of these methods to the exclusion of the others. The pain may be allayed by narcotics. It might be removed by diverting the vital force into another channel, as by cathartics or emetics, or by counter irritation over the region of the liver. Baths, fomentations, and still other ways may be resorted to, hopefully. Homoeopathy teaches us to seek a medicine which has a specific action on the liver, and especially which has a tendency to cause pain in the liver, and that then there will be a presump- tion that if administered in suitable doses it will by some mys- terious process of substitution, remove the suffering of the patient. This supposition is often realized in practice. We hold, moreover, that the relief thus sought is more sure to be obtained, if the pain which the patient suffers corresponds in character and intensity and precise location, to that caused by the remedy. The presumption in its favor is still further increased, according to the completeness of the resemblance in all the antecedents, concomitants, and relations of the two pain-produc- ing causes. We seek remedies which accord with the natural laws of the disease. Remedies which will aid the vital reactions with- out diverting them into new channels. Remedies whose opera- tions are so like the symptoms and the processes whereby nature removes the disease, as to act in harmony therewith, in doses too small under other circumstances to have effect. The degrees of resemblance attainable in practice may in the several cases be infinitely various. Idendity can never be reached. The speculations in regard to it, sometimes indulged in, seem to me to be useless. The Homoeopathic principle as thus stated is viewed by different minds very variously. There are those on one extreme who say that it does not contain a shadow of truth. On the other side are those who deem it the embodiment of all that is 12 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. true in therapeutics. We expect, nay, we are determined to secure its universal recognition. While doing so, let us never imitate a bad example and make the adoption or the rejection of a rigid formula a test of fellowship. There is no definite dividing line between the two schools in regard to this matter. The line of separation varies accord- ing to the opinions and experience of individuals. At first it seemed as if the two parties were antagonistic on this point. But the old school have modified their ground towards our views. It has also been found, as our Materia Medica has been developed, that the Homoeopathic principle comprehends much which has long been held on other grounds, and of which the Homoeopathicity was not at first apparent. The subject has become entangled with other questions about which the parties differ. It is easy to find, according as one may wish, points of agreement or occasions for conflict. There are many tenets held by each side which the other side rejects. But there is one chain, running through them all, numerous links of which are held by both parties. Could we secure a hearing unbiased by prejudice, there are probably few physicians who would not admit willingly that there is in all medication an approximation to the Homoeopathic principle. They know that medicines will disturb, if used in health, at least, if persisted in, and taken in large quantity. This will be more certainly true in proportion as the medicine has a special action on a particular organ. They know that some medicines do have such actions. Some for example are more likely to affect the bowels, some the kidneys, some the skin. Whether in disease or in health, this specific power shows itself and the same medicine will often relieve a suffering organ or disturb the same organ in health. It has long been known that aloes, even if introduced into a vein, will irritate the bowels, and cantharides, when absorbed from a blistered surface on the arm, is liable to irritate the bladder. This special action of medicines is exerted, not merely on the different organs, but also on the different tissues. Some act Annual Address. 13 on the mucus membranes rather than the fibrous; some affect more the nervous tissues, others the muscular. Few medical men would deny, that, if we knew by previous experiment what organs in health are affected by a drug, and what tissues it chiefly acts upon, we would, in that drug, find a remedy, likely to sub- stitute its own action for some of the diseases of those organs. The action of iodine on the glandular tissues; of mercury on the liver; of opium on the nervous system; of ipecacuanha on the mucus membrane; of antimony on the pulmonary tissues, are familiar instances where orthodox remedies approximate the Homoeopathic principle. The writings of the dominant school contain so many admis- sions in favor of this principle, that the entire doctrine may almost be obtained by culling from them. One of their writers,* on the Materia Medica, says that every narcotic, if pushed far enough, always produces some sort of spasm or convulsions. Yet he teaches that the narcotics are among the best remedies for con- vulsions. Of antiphlogistics, he tells us that the symptoms which, in entonic cases, they are so efficacious in removing, in other cases are only aggravated by them. Others tell us that tonics used in health will cause debility: that emetics will in small doses often check vomiting. We see the list of their expectorants increased, by the discovery of new plants which act upon one portion of the mucus membrane, and that of diuretics, by finding those which act upon another portion of that tissue. The doctrine that medicines act specially on the several organs and tissues, is, to a degree, held by both parties. Here, however, a separation takes place. Except by ourselves, no earnest attempt is made to make the symptoms which medicines elicit in health a guide to practice. Neither study nor experi- ment takes this direction. Where nothing is sought, little is found. Our knowledge of the healthy organism is limited on all sides. The structure and functions, even in health, are not perfectly understood. When not in health, still more is dark. No physicians, except ourselves, seem to entertain the thought, that this special action of medicines can be traced beyond those ♦Tully. 14 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. phenomena of disease, which are explicable on pathological con- siderations. Now there are many symptoms which we cannot as yet explain, as there are many effects caused by medicines which we cannot classify. In unknown ways, peculiar to each, a medicine will reach parts of the organism out of the line of its direct effects. The problem becomes complicated as we advance, and is perfectly inscrutable to those who regard this specific action of medicines as exceptional, and never look for it in those phenomena which they cannot link to their pathology. We believe, on the other hand, that the same connection which we have traced between the effects which a medicine will produce in health and the indications for its use in disease, exists also in those phenomena which are beyond our powers of expla- nation. Many of our most successful results are obtained with remedies suggested to us, in the first place, by recondite symp- toms, which as yet we cannot classify. A symptom which would, by others, be overlooked as trifling, will often give to us a clue to the puzzle we seek to decipher. One of the symptoms of our patient may be some peculiarity of taste or other sensation. Another may be something in the temper or disposition of the patient. Thus might be suggested, Silex, or Pulsatilla, or some other article to be used as the remedy or not, according as it coincided or not with the other features of the case. To us a symptom may be most significant, from its relation to time, intensity or other concomitant, which, under any other view than ours, might be disregarded. Such cases are so numer- ous and striking as to be constantly confirming our principles. At the same time, they are inducements to us to perfect our Materia Medica and advance our pathology, until we can classify phenomena now obscure to us. At the best, deficiencies in our knowledge, and short- comings in our practice, remind us that great progress is yet to be made. For the reasons I have indicated, and for other causes the concessions to the Homoeopathic principle made by the mass of the profession, are made unwillingly, and are regarded as excep- tional. But this is not all. They often teach that it is unsafe Annual Address. 15 and injurious to follow this principle in practice. Thus Pereira says: " We can readily imagine the ill-effects which would arise from the exhibition of acrids in gastritis, or of cantharides in inflammation of the bladder, or of mercury in spontaneous salivation." On the contrary, we declare that each of these instances affords an illustration of the truth of Homoeopathy. In these, and in other such cases, Ave follow this principle in practice as far as the state of our knowledge will allow. The danger feared is only apparent. We have the means of always avoiding it. Though it so happens that the process of avoidal is a still greater stumbling block to those who differ from us. Led by the Homoeopathic principle, we see the ordinary acute and chronic diseases treated successfully. We know that pain and cough may often be best subdued without resort to opiates. We often see acute membranous inflammations which threaten incurable adhesions, yield to our remedies. We know that in- flammations of the parenchyma of internal organs in which dis- organization is imminent, will often promptly disappear without the use of any of the ordinary antiphlogistics or revulsives. We sometimes see changes of structure resulting from disease, which had apparently become fixed, restored to the normal condition. The same is true of some morbid growths usually given over entirely to surgery. As our system is further developed we expect to see such results indefinitely extended. We assert, therefore, that in most cases of curable disease, remedies, acting on a principle the opposite to that commonly resorted to, will, if administered in suitable doses, excite reaction and restore health. Is there a talisman whereby Homceopathic physicians can do what others dare not think of doing? Thus might one ask who had already modified his views in the direction I have indicated, and now sees that further change might advantageously be made. Teach me to give a medicine that will act only on the dis- eased tissues, mitigate the course of the malady, and then subside into nothingness. 10 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. Teach me, for example, how to give Belladonna without ever developing its poisonous effects, and that, however extreme is the susceptibility to it. Teach me, in short, how to aid the restorative powers of nature without disturbing them. The answer to these questions suggests one of the strange instances of the weakness of human nature under the power of prejudice with which history is emphasised. This is our answer. Select the remedy whose powers on the healthy organization are most in harmony with the whole character of the disease as indicated by all the symptoms. And then give it in doses so small as shall neither increase the dis- ease nor in any way disturb the patient. From our standpoint it seems strange that the announce- ment of such a method should meet with neglect, contempt, ridicule. I cannot enter upon the discussion of the evidence in regard to the efficacy of our doses. He who seeks such evidence can easily find it. My present object is to make a survey of the field, not fight the battle. The principle of similars is the great issue between us and others. Its truth and the extent of its application, is the sub- ject in controversy. But circumstances give to the question of dose a prominence which intrinsically it is not entitled to. It is the point at which our views meet most opposition. It is the point at which most of our evidence is gathered. Hence it is made the hinge of the controversy. However we may differ among ourselves as to dilutions, we agree in believing in the efficacy of doses, which, compared with those of any other system, may be fairly styled infinitesimal. The question, of all others at issue, is therefore this: Do such doses have remedial effects ? Of this question we take the affir- mative, and maintain that if medicines are selected in accordance with our principle, such as act on the diseased organ, and their mode of action coincident with the line of the disease the limit of susceptibility cannot as yet be pointed out. Annual Address. 17 Strange is the treatment which this question has received. We are constantly learning that power does not consist in weight and bulk. The most active forces are often hid in impalpable agencies. The living animal fibre is the most sensitive of all objects of human knowledge. It will sicken from agencies, quite inappreciable by all other means. It is passing strange that it should be thought a thing incredible, that such tissues, when their susceptibilities are aroused by disease, should respond to appropriate stimuli, even though these are too delicate for the philosopher's balance and the chemist's crucible. This question has never been thoroughly discussed. The attempts at discussion on the part of our opponents are a jum- ble, without reason or logic. They repeat the old error and test questions of fact by metaphysics. Untaught by the past, they shut their eyes to the impending future. Professing to hold all their opinions subject to the decisions of experience, they dog- matically decide the greatest practical question ever presented to them, without resorting to experience themselves, or crediting that of others. When the Homoeopathic evidence is laid before them, they reject it as insufficient. When asked to examine its amount, they reply that no amount of evidence can prove an impossibility. When they are urged to show on what principles our doses do not admit of proof, they tell us of the danger of trusting to theo- ries ; that a rigid observation is the only safe guide to opinions in medicine. When we ask, what light observation throws on Homoeopathic doses ? they reject ours as unworthy of notice, and refuse to resort to it themselves as irrational. Thus, on the ground that our doses lack evidence, or, on the other ground that the efficacy imputed to them does not admit of proof, what- ever be the amount of evidence offered, they have hitherto evaded the force of all that we can bring before them. If their logic is correct, were they themselves to adopt our views and to testify in favor of our doses, their statements would have no validity, for, say they, no medical testimony can prove that which is itself incredible. 3 18 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. There is much in the position of the parties which has aided them. Our principles are definite, and furnish a tangible target for attack. Their's are nowhere. They boast that no set of doctrines can be designated as peculiarly theirs. Accordingly, when a proposition can no longer be disputed, they claim that it is what they have always held, or else, that it is a deduction from their own teachings. Whatever is true, say they, is our doctrine, and what is not our doctrine, is not true. Thus they have evaded the force of our evidence. But there is a limit where this must stop. The time must come when Homoeopathy will be subjected to a thorough determina- tive investigation. When they are compelled to admit our equal- ity with them as candidates for public favor, when they find that in no other way can they exclude us from posts of honor and emolument, they will come to terms. So long as they can take the ground that our views are unworthy of sober discussion, they will as heretofore continue to do so. But a change is coming. There is no new ground of exclu- siveness toward us for them to take. Some of them avow that their attitude is not their individual choice, but is merely yield- ing to rules they find established. Others are conferring with us. Some seek to borrow from our oil, to which they are made welcome. They cannot much longer go on ignoring us. The doses they have ridiculed, they must ultimately prove to be inert, or concede to be valid. No other evidence can be accepted as conclusive, while the best which the nature of the case admits is withheld. They are fully confident, that, when they take up this question in earnest, as one to be settled by experiment, we shall find our cause doomed to suffer. Wonderful stories are told of what great things might be done, if they once set about it. We shall nevertheless welcome the day we have so long desired to see. The final struggle can not much longer be delayed. It occurs at a period elaborately fitted for the occasion. The colla- teral sciences, anatomy, physiology, chemistry and pathology, have reached positions much more definite than those they occu- pied when Homoeopathy was first mooted. Many one-sided issues Annual Address. 19 may thus be avoided. The laws of logical investigation, the principles of evidence and their relations to the inductive philo- sophy, are now our faithful handmaids. That we must adhere to their rules if we enter the lists, is now understood on all hands. If we violate the settled principles of debate, there are around us, as interested spectators, those who are ready to tell us that thereby we admit that the necessities of our cause, or the weakness of our weapons compel us to do so. They tell us, for example, in the words of Hugh Miller: "That no scientific question was ever settled dogmatically, or ever will be. If the question be one in the science of numbers it must be settled arithmetically; if in the science of geometry it must be settled mathematically; if in the science of chemistry it must be settled experimentally." Our part in the struggle calls for all our strength. We can- not, if we would, lay down our weapons. There is a destiny upon us. We work seemingly for our own support, and the good of our friends. But Ave are, it may be unconsciously, the instru- ments of Providence in carrying forward a great reform. New motives for progress are continually presented to us. Once it was for existence, now the struggle is for equality, soon it will be for supremacy. Increasing patronage, the control of Hospitals and other institutions, the important posts of public service and of medical education, are to become the spheres of duty and of labor, and the prizes of success. It becomes us to cherish courtesy, forbearance, kindly feel- ing toAvards our opponents. Forgetting the past, we should ever be ready to seize any opportunity to renew Avith them amicable relations. We should be modest in our assumptions and chari- table in our differences, mindful that we are neither infallible in our opinions, nor faultless in their utterance. We should ever acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe for the immense amount of valuable material we have received from others. What observation and experiment have gathered in regard to the structure and functions of the human organism, its diseases and their remedies, the many useful appliances and processes elicited, should prevent us from speaking with disre- spect of those who differ from us. 20 The American Institute of Homoeopathy. We should be cautious, also, not to assume an attitude of hos tility towards those systems of practice, which, like our own, are outlawed. One of them is doing incalculable good by developing the remedial powers of water, and of variations in temperature. In my judgment, it is in advance of all other systems in incul- cating a correct hygiene. Another has done very good service to our indiginous Materia Medica. Much that they gain will be tributary to us, and aid the triumph of truth. Let us faithfully do what we can to add to the common stock of knowledge. All cannot work in the same field. Some will do best by gathering facts ; others, by combining them; some by standing guard on the ramparts. All can aid the cause either in the outward defence, or the inward development. Let us discourage eATery attempt to appropriate to priA^ate gain, what we have received and AAdiat we can add to it. What was freely communicated to us we should hold as a sacred de- posit for the good of our kind. Let us ever be readAT to welcome and to inATestig;ate new truths, from Avhatever quarter they may come. Let us expect them. All that is possible is not included in our formularies. Our principles have led to the accumulation of multitudinous facts. But observation does not constitute science, and it is pro- bable that the future has in store generalizations which Ave should not at first recognize as true. Let us heed the lesson our own history teaches. We should seek to cherish amicable feelings and honorable conduct among ourselves. Let us rejoice in a spirit of free inves- tigation, never refusing to tolerate any honest differences of opinion in our own ranks, or out of them. • SfsfZL~ NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NLM D13DA775 E ^m^ NLM013087752