yo
7  .«>
Ml
REPORT
OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE  OJF THE TJ. S. SEIATE\
    (THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.)
V
ON THE
SUBJECT OF ANAESTHESIA,
WITH REMARKS OF.
HON. J. P. WALKER, l\ S. S., Chairman. 
 
INTRODUCTION.
   In the winter of 1852-3, a pamphlet was published and circu-
lated in Washington  City, entitled *'An Examination of the
question of  Anaesthesia,  arising  on the  memorial of  Charles
Thomas "Wells, presented to the TJ. S. Senate, 2d  Session, 32d
Congress, and referred to a Select Committee, of which Hon. Isaac
P. Walker is Chairman."
   The production was anonymous, and, from its  external ap-
pearance and ingeniously worded title, might easily be mistaken
for an official document, carrying with it a certain amount of au-
thority.  It was devoted to an elaborate advocacy of the claims of
Doctor Horace Wells, as the discoverer of Anaesthesia.
   The subject of providing a suitable reward for this important
discovery- was at that time before Congress, and had been referred
to a Select  Committee of the  Senate, of which Hon. Isaac P.
Walker  was Chairman.   Notwithstanding the frequent pre-
vious Congressional decisions  in  Dr. Morton's favor,* his claim
was, as usual, resisted before the  committee, by Charles T. Jackson,
and the representatives of Horace Wells.  The anonymous pro-
duction in question was the  argument  submitted to that commit-
tee on behalf of the representatives of Dr. Wells.
   The evidence was voluminous, the argument lengthy,  and the
time for  action short.  The Committee, desirous to reward the
discoverer, but unable, in  the brief space afforded  them, to ex-
amine the evidence in full, adopted  Dr. Morton's suggestion,
viz.; that  the  money should  be  appropriated,  and the parties
claiming the  discovery should submit their  respective claims to
the adjudication of a Court of Equity.  They, accordingly, made
a  brief report,  accompanied  by a bill.  To this report the chair-
man, who had carefully examined the question, appended,  at some
length, his views on the evidence  and the argument adduced in
support of the claim put forward by the representatives of Horace
* Report of Select Committee H. R, 28th Congress, 2d Session.
         Naval    "      "  32d
     "   Miliary  "   Senate, "     "
         Naval    "      "   "
     "   S«leet   "   H. R., "     "    1st Session.
• 
4
Wells.   The  report  of the committee,  and the views  of  the
chairman, are contained in the following pages :—

  Recently,  the Hon. Trueman  Smith, formerly U.  S. Senator
from Connecticut, has republished the same argument, heretofore
issued  anonymously,  preceded  by an introduction, in. which he
avows  its authorship,  and undertakes to give a brief history of
the coiitroversv in question.  Hence, it is deemed desirable  to give
circulation to the report of the committee, and the review  of  the
evidence bv Its chairman.
  But  a brief space will be devoted  to the .additional  matter in
Mr. Smith's  introduction.  It is so manifestly the  production of
p >rsonal malice, that, to a reflecting and impartial mind, it  carries
with it, in a great degree, its own refutation.  Indeed, the inde-
cency of this proceeding,  by which the advocate, retained  to sus-
tain  the claim of Dr. Wells, after an adverse decision by the  tri-
bunal to which the contr6versy pertained,  appeals from that  de-
cision, and republishes his  own  argument, alreadv overruled, is
too obvious  to need comment:  the public will hardly believe  the
assertions of the advocate as against the decision of the judge.
  The new matter produced by Mr. Smith in his introduction is.
of two classes.  The  one, false  assertions, which can only hope
for credit from those who are uninformed on the subject; and
the other, malicious insinuations, utterly irrelevant to the contro-
verey, but calculated, by injuring Dr.  Morton in public estimation,
to prevent the long deferred  reward of his beneficent discovery.
  They shall be here briefly answered, and mainly* by reference
to Mr. Smith's own production.
  On page 115 of that argument, it appears that,  during the  ses-
sion  of Congress of 1851-2, Mr. Joseph Wajes(the brother of Mrs.
Wells) transmitted to Washington, on her behalf, the papers evi-
dencing her husband's claim to be considered the discoverer of
Anaesthesia.   They were so sent for the  purpose of being laid
before  the committee of the House of Representatives, of  which
Hon. William H. Bissell  was chairman, and which was then  en-
gaged  in the investigation  of the authorship of that discovery.
That these papers were laid before that  committee is certified by
the Hon. Edward Stanly, and by Mr. Smith himself.  All this ap-
pears in the body of his  argument;  yet in the face of it  he  has
the hardihood to assert, in his recently written introduction, u that
the inquiry  before Hon. Mr. Bissell and his associates was, so far as
the family and friends of Dr.  Wells were  concerned, wholly ex
parte!   That he understood that much  of the time of the Com-
mittee was  occupied by the controversy between Morton  and
Jackson, to  which  he paid  no  attention."  Comment is unneces-
sary.
   That Committee  examined the whole question thoroughly, and 
5
made "and signed a report recommending the  appropriation  of
$100,000 by Congress for the remuneration of Dr. Morton as  the
discoverer.  The session, however, was drawing to a close, and
lest the measure might be lost for want of time to reach it in  the
ordinary course  of business,  the Chairman of  the Committee
addressed the following  letter to the  Chairman  of  the Military
Committee of the Senate, which explains itself:—

                                  Hocse of Representatives,  )
                                        August 9,  1852.       J
Sir:

  I have the honor to transmit for your perusal,  a printed copy of a re-
port agreed upon by the Select Committee of the House of  Representa-
tives, to whom was referred the memorial of Dr. William T. G. Morton,
asking remuneration  from Congress for the  discovery  of the anaesthetic
properties of sulphuric ether, from which you will perceive that the com-
mittee have determined to report a bill appropriating the  sum of $100,-
000 to Doctor Morton, as a compensation for his discovery,  and in con-
sideration of the surrender to the United  States of all right and interest
which he now holds in that discovery, in virtue of letters patent, granted
to him by this government.  *
  There is every disposition on the part of the House to favor this  bill,
and its many friends are sanguine of its passing by a large vote if it can
be reached. It is feared, however, from the recent ruling of the House,
which makes it out of order to append amendments to the regular appro-
priation bills, which are not made to carry out previously existing laws,
will present an effectual barrier to its being brought up in that manner,
and  the late period  of the session precludes the hope that it can be
reached in the ordinary course of business.
  The object  of this communication, therefore,  is, to urge  upon your
consideration, the practicability and propriety ©f attaching the bill above
referred to, to  the " army appropriation bill" for  the present fiscal year,
when the  same  shall come under consideration in the Committee on
Military Affairs of the Senate.

              Very respectfully, your obedient  servant,

                                        WILLIAM H. BISSELL.
Hon. James Shields,
     Chairman of Committee on Military Affairs, TJ. S. Senate.

   It was on this invitation that the committee on Military Affairs
of the Senate, seconded by that on Naval Affairs, took the course
suggested by  Mr. Bissell, and  which, on page 4  of  his introduc-
tion, Mr. Smith states so much surprised him.
   In the face  of these known and  published facts,  Mr. Smith
asserts that the committee of the House  made  no report; that, if
they did, it was printed without authority, and that the proceed-
ing  was  unsanctioned by Mr. Bissell. 
d
   the Unfortunate death of Dr. Wells by his own hand is referred
 to in the introduction, and accompanied by an insinuation that
 Dr. Morton was, indirectly, the cause of this event.  Nothing but
 the malignity and  baseness of this insinuation  would justify an
 allusion to the  unhappy circumstances under  which Dr. Wells
 destroyed himself.  They will be found recounted at length in the
 New-York daily papers of the day.   He died  by his own hand,
 whilst under  arrest for------.  Charity has consigned to oblivion
 the cause of his  arrest, and thrown the mantle of insanity over his
 suicide, whence  no hand has yet been sacrilegious enougn to with-
 draw it,  but that of one calling himself the advocate  of his
 widow and child.  Let the same charity which passes over the
 death of the father and  husband,  indulge  the presumption that
 the widow and child had no part in this unhallowed desecration
 of  Ms  memory.  The  honor of that achievement belongs to
 the Honorable Trueman Smith.  Let him alone  enjoy it!
  The assertions with reference to Dr. Morton's heavy expendi-
 tures in Washington, "cigars, oyster suppers, and champagne," &c,
 are not  deemed  worthy  of serious notice.  The Honorable Mr.
 Smith may find this style of argument worthy of himself; no one
 will dispute the justice of his taste.  He may think it adapted to
 the medical  profession,  and  the intelligent directors of  public
 institutions,  to  whom  he addresses himself;  therein  persons
 may differ;  but he  is  entitled to manifest his appreciation of
 the audience he addresses,  and  he  has  done so.   To   reply
 seriously to  such  statements, would be to treat a grave  ques-
 tion of scientific merit after the style of a low  pot-house  politi-
 cian.  Of  this mode of discussion the Honorable Mr. Smith shall
 have an entire monopoly.  But the insinuation  that Dr. Morton
 was complicated in theirauds practiced on the Eastern K. B. Co.
 by  W. S. Tuckerman, is  redeemed   from contempt by its
 atrocity .^  It might indeed be  passed  over as simply " from the
 purpose"—for it  is  difficult to see what possible light can be shed
 on the  discovery of Anaesthesia, by proving ' that  this  or that
 claimant to the honor was black or white, a mail robber or a saint__
 but lest the grossness  of intellect and  blackness of heart  which
 could originate  such  a  charge and see such a  sequence,  might
 succeed in imposing on a single individual,  to Dr. Morton's  preju-
 dice, it shall be briefly answered.                ,
  At the time Tuckerman furnished  aid to Dr. Morton, he was
 occupying a high financial position in Boston.  Living in'magnifi.
 cence, and possessed, apparently, of great wealth,  he aimed at high
social position, desired to be considered a patron of science and
art, and was  gradually succeeding in this aim.  At the time Dr
Morton's friends  were combining, in 1851, to raise funds to enable
him to prosecute his claim on the Government,  and when a con-
siderable part of  the sum needed had been subscribed, Mr. Tuck- 
7
erman came forward and offered a munificent subscription for the
purpose.  The offer was accepted without the slightest suspicion,
on the part of Dr. Morton, or the other subscribers, that Tucker-
man was  aught else than what he appeared—a capitalist.  This
whole matter was made public in a recent work, to which, if the
reader be curious, he is referred.  It need only be added here, that
Dr. Morton holds Tuckerman's receipt in full of all demands, and
that the Eastern Bailroad exonerate  him of any connection with
Tuckerman, such as is insinuated by Mr. Smith.


                              Eastern Railroad Office,     )
                                  Boston, January 22rf, 1856. \
Dr. Wm. T. G. Morton.

       Sir:—

  In answer to yours of the 18th inst., I would  state, that so far as any
investigations into the accounts of our late Treasurer, Wm. S. Tuckerman,
have been made by me, either as President of this Road, or as Auditor,
I have seen nothing that would show any. connection with you whatever.

                                Yours,

                                      ALBERT THORNDIKE.


  The  pretence that  the Eastern K. R. Co. have  or assert any
claim  to sums  contributed for Dr. Morton's benefit, is answered
by  the following, written in reply to an inquiry by one of the
Governors of the New-York Aims-House.


                        Office of the Eastern Railroad Co.,)
                                Boston, Nov. 6, 1858.       )
C. Godfrey Gunther, Esq.,
               Governor Alms-House.

       Dear Sir:—

  In reply to your inquiry, I have to siy that the Eastern Railroad have
no clai u, either by assignment of patent, or otherwise, to any sum which
the Governors of the Aims-House may appropriate or pay to Wm. T. G.
Morton for the use of his patent or discovery of the application of sul-
phuric ether.
                    Very respectfully,

                              GEORGE M.  BROWN, President.


  In conclusion, a single instance of suppression of truth will be
noticed.  In giving the history of Congressional  action on the
question, Mr. Smith states,  that the Senate  Committee arrived at 
8
the conclusion, that the question would only be settled in a satis-
factory manner by a  reference to the Judicial* tribunals of the
country, and that a  bill was accordingly prepared  and reported
for that purpose.  A very slight amount of frankness—meer
common honesty—would have required  Mr. Smith to state that
this bill was suggested by Dr. Morton, and  urged by him on the
committee.  Confident that his claim would be triumphantly sus-
tained by evidence before any court of equity, he did not hesitnte
to offer to  submit his claim to such a tribunal, and offered, in
addition, to defray the expense of the litigation on the part of his
opponents.  "But candor, fair dealing, common honesty, have no
place in Mr. Smith's mode of conducting a controversy.  It is clear
that he proposes to succeed, not in procuring any reward for-Dr.
Wells—that hope he has long since abandoned—but in prevent-
ing Dr. Morton from reaping the reward of his labors, by reckless
and daring assertion, and the repetition of oft refuted calumnies.
  With  these  observations the report of the  Senate Committee
and the analysis of the evidence by the Chairman, are resubmitted
to the public as an answer, to  the recent reproduction of Mr.
Smith's  argument. 
32d Congress,           [SENATE.]               Rep. Com.
  2d Session.                                        No. 421.
IN SENATE OF THE  UNITED SENATE.
Fibkcart 19, 1853—Ordered to be printed.
              . Mr. Walker made the following

                        REPORT:

[To accompany an amendraent intended to be proposed to the act (H. R. 336) "making
   appropriation for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1854."]

The select, committee, to which were referred the various memorials
   in regard to the discovery of the means by which the human body
   is rendered  uniformly and safely insensible to pain under surgi-
   cal operations, has had the subject under consideration, and now
   report:

   That in the opinion of the committee such a discovery has been
made, and that  the credit and honor of the  discovery belong to
one of the following persons, all citizens of the  United States, to
wit:  William T. G. Morton, Horace Wells, deceased, or Charles
T. Jackson; but  to which of these persons in particular the dis-
covery should be awarded, the committee  is not unanimous, and
consequently the committee is  of opinion that  this point should
not  be settled by Congress without a judicial inquiry.
   But the committee has no hesitancy in saying, that to the man
who has bestowed this boon upon mankind, when he shall be cer-
tainly made known, the highest honor and reward are due which
it is compatible with the institutions  of  our country to bestow.
   The means  of safely producing insensibility to pain in surgical
and kindred operations have been  the great  desideratum in the
curative art from the earliest period of medical science, and have
been zealously sought for during a period  of more than a thou-
sand years.  At various  periods, and in various ages,  hope has
been excited in the human breast that this great agent had been
found; but all proved delusive, and hope as often died away, un-
til the discovery now under consideration burst upon the world
from our own  country,  and in our own day.  Then, and not until
then, was the  time-cherished hope realized that the knife would
lose its sting, and that blood might follow  its  edge without  pain.
   But for the committee  to dilate upon the  importance of this
discovery  were  futile  indeed.  The  father or mother who has
seen a child, or the child who has  a   father or mother, upon the
surgeon's table, writhing and shrieking  from  pain and  agony—
the husband who has seen his wife suffering,  perhaps dying, un-
4 
2
der the nndurable pangs of parturition, the extirpation of a breast
or cancer, or the amputation of a limb, while she appealed  and
implored for help and ease which he could not otherwise render—
the commander who has  seen  his soldiers, and the soldier who
has seen his companion, sink,  nervously shocked to death from
pain, in the absence of this alleviation—and the suurgeon who
is forced to torture, while, perhaps, he weeps—can all more redily
feel the magnitude and blessing of this discovery than the com-
mittee can describe it.  Indeed, while  the heart of man shall re-
main human, or possess the power to  pulsate in sympathy with
human suffering, it would seem that none would deny it the meed
of pre-eminence among the discoveries of  any age.
  Leaving, therefore, the importance of the discovery, as a mat-
ter conceded by all, the committee will proceed to the considera-
tion of another inquiry, which is—has Congress the constitutional
power to grant  pecuniary reward for  the  use and benefit of the
discovery, had and derived by the Government in its military and
naval service, its hospitals, and asylums ?
  Were this an original  question, or  one  presented for the first
time, it would seem that very little reflection ought to satisfy the
most jealous objector that such a power is possessed by Congress.
Were it not so, the Government might become the veriest laggard
in every species of progress; or, to escape that difficulty, must be-
come  the worst and only resistless pirate upon the rights, inven-
tions,  and discoveries df its citizens.   For instance: an invention
in mechanical, or a discovery in physical science is made.   By its
use, private individuals and governments, having the power to
avail  themselves of it, transmit a message  in a minute, which
would otherwise require a week; propel a ship to a given point
in a week, which, without the  availed discovery, would require a
month; send their agents or soldiers to  a point  in a day, which
could not be reached, formerly, in twenty; or print matter in an
hour,  which formerly required a day: while our Government, not
possessing the rightful power  to avail itself of the invention or
discovery, must necessarily lag behind private individuals and all
other Governments, whether in peace or war, and move on in the
old and slothful paths;  or it must  do by piracy, or  usurpation,
what it is alleged it cannot do constitutionally—infringe the pri-
vate rights of its citizens, and avail itself by might of that which
it cannot  obtain by the exercise of rightful power.  But, before
it can do even this, it must be first conceded that  the Government
can reach an unconstitutional but necessary end by means of a
constitutional wrong.  The bare proposition involves so plain v.
solicism, that serious consideration of it is  precluded.
   As an original and open  question, then, the committee would
be of opinion that  Congress does possess the power to avail itself
of the use of the  discovery under consideration ; or having had,
and still having the use and benefit of it, can rightfully grant a
reward for that use and benefit. 
3
  But  the  committee cannot view the question  of power as an
original or open one.  The time is too long, and the instances are
too numerous, in which  the  power has been exercised, to allow
of its being so considered.  A list of some of the cases in which
the power in  question has been exercised, will be  found appended
to this report; but the committee will  here  allude to a class of
cases involving the power to the extreme limit—cases in which
the Government has even stood forth to assist private individuals,
with money, in their efforts to make and perfect their discoveries
and inventions: such, for instance,  as the  cases of Professors
Morse, Page, and Espy.
   The committee being of opinion that this discovery is eminently
meritorious, and its use by the Government of vast and incalcula-
ble value and benefit, have concluded to recommend to the favor-
able consideration  of the Senate the accompanying provision, by
way of amendment to the army appropriation bill.
   [This proposition given $100,000 to the discoverer.]
 Views of the Chairman on "An Examination of the Question of
                         Ancesthesia."
  While the question of anaesthesia, on the memorials of sundry
persons, was  under consideration  by  the  Select  Committee
of the Senate, of which I was Chairman,  a paper entitled "An
Examination of the question of anesthesia," prepared by the Hon.
Truman Smith, a member of the  Committee, and having thus a
quasi official character, was printed and circulated  among  the
members of the Senate and House of Representatives.  And as,
in my opinion, that paper presents a one-sided and partial view
of the question; such as might be expected  of an advocate of
easy faith in his client's cause, and strong indignation against all
that oppose it;  and consequently  comes to a conclusion  widely
different from that which a calm and  impartial consideration of
the whole case would warrant, I deem it an act of mere  justice
to the person who I believe has the right, to present also  the
opinion  which I have formed upon the same points after a care-
ful examination.
  The writer of that paper gives the whole merit of the discovery
of practical anaesthesia to the late Dr. Horace Wells, of Hart-
ford, Connecticut, and  he denounces, in no measured terms, as
pirates and impostors both the other claimants to that distinguish-
ed honor.   lie is especially bitter and abusive of Dr. Morton,
whose character is above all reproach, and whose  claim to  the
contested prize is supported by very strong evidence, while he
shows some  little forbearance towards  Dr. Jackson, who  has
failed in making out his claim.   The strength of his denuncia-
tions against the  respective parties,  and the degree of villany
which he imputes to  them is in direct  proportion to the strength
of their proofs. 
4
  I feel no interest or wish in this matter, except that the truth
may be arrived at, and  right and justice done; and that I may
discharge faithfully the duty which  the Senate has imposed on
me by the reference, by endeavoring to obtain it, and present it.
And it is  but fair to say, in the outset, that, after a careful exami-
nation of all the allegations and proofs to which I have had ac-
cess, my  mind is made up—my opinion formed on the question—
and that I concur with the Board of Trustees of the Massachusetts
Medical Hospital in the opinion expressed in their report of Jan-
uary 26t.h, 1848, and with the two committees of the  House of
Representatives of 1849 and 1852, that Dr. W. T. G. Morton first
discovered and brought into general use a safe, certain,  and effi-
cient anaesthetic agent, applicable generally to all dentrical, sur-
gical, and obstetrical cases, and that he is entitled to whatever
honor and reward are due to the discovery,  and the free and ge-
neral use of it, by the army and navy  of the United States, by
the country, and by the civilized  world.

       Dr. Wells not the original conceiver of Ancesthesia.
  He was, however, by no means the first that "formed a distinct
conception of ancesthesia."   Nor was Dr. Horace Wells, or Dr. C.
T. Jackson.   If we trace the "conception"  as far back through
the lapse of ages as it is disclosed to us by history, we will find
they were, each and all of them, among the  last that entertained
it.   Nor  was either  of them the first that "attained that end by
means, good and satisfactory" for a  time, at least, to themselves
and a circle of select friends who felt pride or interest in finding
the means "satisfactory."  None, however, as far as we know,
prior to Dr.  Morton, attained it by "means" deemed "good and
satisfactory" by the medical profession generally throughout the
civilized world, and published to the world the discovery of means
such as that profession  generally would venture to  receive and
bring into use.  But the world, for more than  two thousand years
past, has teemed with  the  discovery and  use of various agents,
clearly and  indubitably possessed of anaesthetic qualities, used in
some instances—many of them frequently and for a long  time—
with considerable reputation and success.  None of them, how-
ever, prior to  the introduction of the use of the vapor of sulphuric
ether by Dr. Morton, were able to make its way or hold its place
among an intelligent and  scientific  modern  medical profession.
A history of these anaesthetic agents, their qualities and use was
not long since published  by Dr.  J.  Y. Simpson, of Edinburg,
to whose brief but. elegant essay the  committee of the House of
Representatives who reported on this question in 1852 was large-
ly indebted for the facts given in  the   historical introduction to
their very able report—the  following extract i'rem which is fully
to my present purpose: 
5
            Lelheon Anodynes used by the Ancients.
  " Intense pain is regarded by mankind, generally, as so serious
an evil that it would have been strange indeed if efforts had  not
been early made to diminish this species of suffering.   The use of
the juice of the poppy, henbane, mandragora, and other narcotic
preparations, to effect this object by their deadening influence,
may be traced back till it disappears in the darkness of a  highly
remote  antiquity.  Intoxicating  vapors were also employed, by
way of inhalation, to produce the same effects as drugs of this
nature introduced  into the stomach.  This  appears from the ac-
count given by Herodotus, of  the practice of the Scythians, seve-
ral centuries before Christ, of  using the vapor of hemp seed as a
means of drunkenness.   The known means of stupefaction were
very early resorted  to, in order  to counteract pain  produced by
artificial causes.   In executions, under the horrible form of cruci-
fixion, soporific mixtures were  administered  to alleviate the pangs
of the victim.  The draught of vinegar and gall, or myrrh, offered
to the  Savior in his agony, was the ordinary tribute of human
sympathy extorted from the bystander by the spectacle of intole-
rable anguish.
   " That some letheon anodyne might be found to assuage the tor-
ment of surgical  operations  as  they were  anciently performed,
cauterizing the cut surfaces, instead of tying  the  arteries, was
not only a favorite notion, but it had been in some  degree, how-
ever imperfect, reduced to  practice.  Pliny, the naturalist, who
perished in the eruption of Vesuvius, which entombed the city of
Herculaneum, in  the year 79, bears distinct and decided testi-
mony to this  fact.
  " It has a soporific power," says he in his description of the
plant known as the mandragora or circeius, " It has a soporific
power on the faculties of those who drink it.  The ordinary potion
is half a cup.   It is drunk against serpents, and before cuttings
and puncturings,  lest  they  should  be felt."  {Bibitur et  contra
serpentes, et ante sectiones, punctionesque, ne sentiantur.)
  When he comes to speak of the plant eruca, called by us the
rocket, he informs us that its seeds, when drunk, infused in wine,
by criminals  about to undergo the lash, produce a certain cal-
lousness or induration of feeling,  {duaitiam quondam  contra sen-
sum induere.)
  Pliny also asserts that the stone Memphitis, powdered and ap-
plied in  a liniment  with vinegar, will stupefy parts to be cut or
cauterized, " for it so paralyzes the part that it feels no pain; nee
sent it cruciatum."

                    Antiquity of Ancesthesia.

  Dioscorides,  a  Greek physician of Cilicia,  in  Asia, who was
born about the time  of  Pliny's death, and  who  wrote an exten-
sive work on the materia medica, observes, in his chapter on
mandragora— 
   1.  "Some boil  down  the  roots in wine to  a third  part, and
 preserve  the juice thus  procured, and give one cyathus of it in
 sleeplessness and  severe pains, of whatever part;  also, to  cause
 the insensibility—to produce the anaesthesia {poiein anaisthesian)
 of those who are to be cut or cauterized"
   2.  "There is prepared, also, besides the decoction, a wine from
 the bark of the root,  three minae being  thrown into  a cask of
 sweet wine, and of this three cyathi are given  to those who are to
 be  cut or cauterized, as  aforesaid; for being thrown into a deep
 sleep, they do not perceive pain."
   3.  Speaking of  another variety of mandragora, called morion,
 he observes, "medical men use it also for those who are to be cut
 or cauterized."
   Dioscorides also describes the  stone Memphitis, mentioned by
 Pliny, and says that when it is powdered and applies  to  parts to
 be cut or  cauterized, they  are  rendered, without the slightest
 danger, wholly insensible to pain.   Matthiolus, the  commentator
 on Dioscorides, confirms  his statement  of the virtues of mandra-
 gora, which is repeated by Dodoneus.  "Wine in  which the
 roots of mandragora has been steeped," says  this later writer,
 "brings on sleep,  and appeases  all pains, so  that it is given to
 those who are to be cut,  sawed, or burned, in any parts of  their
 body, that they may not  perceive pain."
  The expressions used by Apuleius, of Madaura, who flourished
 about a century after Pliny, are still more remarkable than those
 already quoted from the older authors.   He says, when  treating
 of mandragora, "If any one  is to have a  member mutilated,
 burned, or sawed, (mutilandum, comburendum, vel  serrandurn,) let
 him drink half an ounce with wine, and let him sleep till the mem-
 ber is cut  away, without any pain or sensation, (et tantum dormiet,
 quosque abscindatur membrum aliquo sine dolore et sensu")

          Anaesthetic agents used in China centuries ago.

  It was  not in Europe and in  Western Asia alone that these
 early efforts to discover some letheon were made, and  attended
 with partial success.  On the opposite side  of the continent, the
 Chinese, who have anticipated the Europeans in so many import-
 ant inventions, as in gunpowder, the mariner's compass,  printing
 lithography, paper  money, and the use of coal, seem  to have been
 quite  as far in advance of the occidental world in medical science.
 They understood, ages before  they were introduced into Christen-
 dom, the use of substances containing iodine for the cure of the
 goitre, and employed spurred  rye, ergot,  to  shorten dangerously
 prolonged labor in difficult accouchments. Among the therapeutic
 methods confirmed by the experience of thousands of years there-
cords  of which  they have preserved with religious veneration the
employment of an anaesthetic agent to paralyze the nervous sensi-
 bility  before performing surgical operations, is distinctly set forth.
Among a  considerable number of Chinese works on the pharma- 
1
copaeia, medicine, and surgery in  the  National Library at Paris,
is one  entitled, Kou-kin-i-tong, or general collection of ancient
and  modern medicine, in fifty volumes quarto.  Several hundred
biographical notices of the most distinguished physicians in China
are prefixed to this work.   The following curious passages occur
in the sketches of the biography of Hoa-tho, who flourished under
the dynasty of Wei, between the  years 220 and  230 of our  era.
" When he determined that it was necessary to employ acupunc-
ture, he applied it  in two or three places; and so with the moxa,
if that was indicated by the nature of the affection to be treated.
But  if the disease resided in  parts upon which the  needle, moxa,
or liquid medicaments could not operate,  for  example in the
bones, or the marrow of the  bones, in the stomach, or the intes-
tines, he gave the  patient a preparation of hemp, (in the Chinese
language mayo,) and afrer  a  few moments he became as insensi-
ble as if he had been drunk or dead.  Then, as the case required,
he performed operations, incisions, or  amputations, and removed
the cause of the malady, then he brought together and secured
the  tissues, and applied  liniments.  After a certain  number  of
days, the patient  recovered, without  having experienced during
the operation the slightest pain. Hoa-tho has published, under the
title of Nei-tchao-thou, anatomical plates, which exhibit the  inte-
rior of the human  body, which have come down to our times, and
enjoy a great reputation."
   It will be noticed  that the agent employed by Hoa-tho, which
he calls ma-yo, hemp medicine, and which is called in the annals
of the  latter Hans, mafo-san, or hemp essence powder, is the ex-
tract of the  same plant mentioned by Herodotus, twenty-three
centuries ago, canuabis Indica, the haschisch of the Arabs, which
is now extensively cultivated in Hindostan, for the  purpose  of
manufacturing the substance called Bhang, to produce a peculiar
species  of intoxication, at first seductive and delicious, but fol-
lowed in its habitual use by terrible effects upon the constitution.
   Almost a thousand years after  the date of the unmistakeable
phrases quoted from  Apuleius,  acccording to  the testimony of
William of Tyre,  and other chronicles of the wars for the rescue
of the  holy sephulcre, and the  fascinating narrative of  Marco
Polo, a state of anaesthesia was induced for very different purpo-
ses.   It became an instrument in the hands  of bold and crafty
impostors to perpetrate and  extend the most  terrible fanaticism
that the world has ever seen.

    Inhalation of an  Anodyne Vapor in the thirteenth century.

   The employment of anaeesthetic agents in surgical operations,
was not forgotten or abandoned during the period when  they
were pressed  into the appalling service just described.   In the
thirteenth  century, anaesthesia was  produced by  inhalation  of
an anodyne  vapor,  in a mode oddly forestalling  the practices 
                              8

of the present day, which is thus described in the following pas-
sage of  the surgical treatise of Theodoric, who died in 121H.  It
is the receipt for the "spongia  somnifera," as it  is called in the
rubric:
  " The preparation of a scent for performing surgical operations,
according to Master Hugo.  It is made thus: Take of opium and
the juice of unripe mulberry, of hyoscyamus, of the juice of the
hemlock, of the juice of the leaves of the mandragora, of the juice
of the woody ivy, of the juice of the forest mulberry, of the seeds
of lettuce, of the seed  of the burdock,  which has large and round
apples, and of the water hemlock, each one ounce ; mix the whole
of these together in a brazen vessel, and then in  it place a new
sponge,  and let the whole boil, and as long as the sun on  the dog
days, till it (the sponge) consumes it all, and let it be boiled away
in "it.  As often as there is need of it, place this same sponge into
warm water for one hour, and let it be applied to the nostrils till
he who*is to be operated on {qui incidentus est) has fallen asleep ;
and in this state let the operation  be  performed {et  sic fiat chi-
rurgia.)   When this  is finished, in order to rouse him, place
another, dipped in vinegar, frequently  to his  nose, or let the juice
of the roots of fenigreek be squirted into his nostrils.  Presently
he awakens."

        Prophylactic agents used during the middle ages.
  Guy de Chauliac and Brunus are the only  authors on medicine
and surgery, besides Theodoric, who, during  this period, allude to
prophylactic  agents to avert  pain.   It may be presumed, there-
fore, that  their employment was not generally very successful.
Probably bad effects, such as congestion and asphyxia, and some-
times ending in  death, followed their  unskillful  empiricism.  J.
Canappe, the physician of Francis I., in his work printed at Lyons
in 1535, Le Guidon pour les Barbiers et  les Chirurgiens, the Sur-
geon's and Barber's Guide, describes the method of Theodoric
and his  followers, as already given above, and adds:  " Les autres
donnent opium a boire, et font mal, specialement s'il est jeune ; et
le aper^oivent, car ce  est avec une grande bataille de vertu ani-
male et naturelle.  J'ai oui quilz encourent  manie, et par conse-
quent la mort."
  Thus  much is known to us of the efforts of the medical faculty
in remote antiquity and during the middle ages, to destroy€>r mit-
igate pain in surgical  operations—and they  were attended  with
a certain degree of success, especially the " spongia somnifera "
described  by Theodoric, the use of which was again revived in
our own times.

French experiments in 1832, exactli/ parallel  to those of Dr. Wells'
                           in  1844.
  " A French physician, residing in the neighborhood of Toulouse,
M.  Dauriol, asserts that, in in the year 1832, he  employed a 
9
method analogous to that of Theodoric, and specifies five cases in
which he succeeded in performing painless operations."
  The success of the modern  revival of  this ancient anaesthetic
agent, appears to  have been  about equal to  that of Dr. Wells
with the nitrous oxyd.  M. Dauriol says he applied it  successfully
and specifies five  cases in which he performed operations with-
out pain,  and  it  may be reasonably inferred, without  previous
mental preparation.  Dr. Wells  performed an  operation, that of
extracting a tooth or teeth, on  " ten or fifteen " persons as he says,
but the first and only exhibition he made of  it out  of his own
town was a failure, and brought him  and his nostrum into ridi-
cule.   He certainly did no more in 1844 to prove the utility of
nitrous oxyd as an  anaesthetic agent, than  Dauroil had done for the
spongia somnifera in 1832.  Nor did he do more  to advance  the
general idea of anaesthesia, or to commend it to the favorable
notice of the medical faculty.  Nor did M. Dauriol stand alone in
this department of medical science :                   •

      English use of Gases to produce insensibility in 1828.

  " September 23,1828, M. Girardin read  a letter before the Acad-
emy of Medicine, addressed to his  Majesty Charles X., by Mr.
Hickman, a surgeon of London, in which this surgeon announces
a means of performing the most delicate and most dangerous ope-
rations without producing pain in the individuals submitted to
them.   This proceeding consists in suspending  insensibility by the
methodical  introduction of certain  gases into the  lungs.  Mr.
Hickman  had tested his proceedings by repeated  experiments on
animals."
  But neither of their discoveries met with any considerable suc-
cess.   Neither was acknowledged or adopted by the medical pro-
fession, though both had formed " a distinct conception of ancesthe-
sia" and both of them "attained that end" by means "good and
satisfactory " to themselves, though not to the medical profession.
  Other anaesthetic agents  have been tried, with some success,
but never brought into general use, nor obtained  the approval of
an enlightened medical faculty.
  "Haller, Deneux, and  Blandin, report  cases of  operations per-
formed upon patients under the influence of alcholic intoxication,
in obstetric and other cases, without pain ; and Richerand has sug-
gested that this expedient should be employed in the management
of dislocations difficult to be reduced.   For  obvious reasons it
has not been  adopted  by the  profession.  Mesmerism, also,  has
been the subject of grave discussions, and of some extraordinary
statements, in this connection ; but, whatever may be thought of
the individual cases certified by witnesses, it is not too much to
say that it is not likely ever to become a remedy of  general  ap-
plication." 
10
  The last named agent, Mesmerism, consists wholly, perhaps, in
"mental preparation," which  alone  holds a prominent place in
Dr. Wells's experiments.

           Dr. Wells did not " discover" Ancesthesia.

  I will now proceed to consider more particularly the subject of
the alledged discovery of Dr. Wells.  And whether he did, in fact,
discover any thing not already known, or bring into general use,
among the medical profession, a quality or a substance already
known, but which had been theretofore neglected.
  That he did  not first discover "anaesthesia"  as a condition of
the human frame, or that various substances, solid,  liquid, and
gaseous, would produce it, is manifest  from what I have already
shown.  The fact has been well understood from  the first dawn
of medical science, through all  ages and at all times, down to the
present day.  Nor has he discovered that the property of produc-
ing anaesthesia exists in a substance not heretofore known  to
possess it, for,  that property of the  nitrous  oxyd has been long
well known.   And the use to which  Dr. Wells applied it, was an-
ticipated by Sir Humphrey Davy more than half  a century ago.
In his researches on nitrous oxyd, p.  276, he  says:

  Sir Humphrey Davy described the properties of Nitrous Oxyd
                      fifty years since.
  "In one instance, when I had headache from indigestion, it was
immediately removed by the effects of a large dose of gas ; though
it afterwards returned, but with much  less violence.   In a second
instance, a slighter degree of headache  was wholly removed by
two doses  of gas.
  " The power of the immediate operation of the gas in  removing
intense physical pain, I had a very good opportunity of ascertaining.
  "In cutting one of the unlucky teeth called dentes sapientiae, I
experienced an extensive inflammation of the gum, accompanied
with great pain,  which  equally destroyed  the  power of  repose,
and of consistent action.
  "On the day when the inflammation was most troublesome, I
breathed three large doses of nitrous oxyd.  The pain always di-
minished after the first four  or five  inspirations; the thrilling
came on as usual, and uneasiness was for a few  minutes swal-
lowed up in pleasure.  As the former state of  mind however re-
turned, the state of organ returned with it; and I once  imagined
that the pain was more severe after the experiment than before."
  And on  page 32 :

  "As nitrous  oxyd, in its extensive operations, appears capable
of destroying physical pain, it may probably be used with advan-
tage during surgical operations in which  no  great effusion of
blood takes place." 
11
   So that Dr. Wells could claim no originality in the discovery
or conception of anaesthesia, or of the fact that nitrous oxyd, as
well as many other substances, would produce it.
   And I have also as clearly shown that he was not the first to
apply anaesthesia to destroy pain  in  surgical operations.  The
practice was familiar with  ancients.  The northern and eastern
nations, as well as the Greeks and Romans, understood and prac-
tised it, and  the preparation of the anaesthetic agent was a fami-
liar head in the dispensatories of the middle ages, and the prac-
tice was not entirely abandoned in modern times.  Mr. Girardin
recommended it in 1828.  M. Dauriol used it in surgical opera-
tions in 1832.
   So, also, did Hallena, Denwin, and Blandia;  in short, the pro-
ceeding pages show clearly that Dr. Wells had no claims as the
originator  of aaesthesia, or  as having  been (to  use the words of
the writer of the  " Examination ")  the first being upon whom an
anaesthetic operation was  performed.
   The next proposition  we shall discuss is, that—

    The experiments of Dr. Wells did not advance the discovery.
   The testimony showing the truth of this assertion may be best
considered by distributing it according to its applicability to the
following cardinal points, viz:
   1st. That of the anaesthetic agents, known or unknown to the
scientific world, he selected  one which is certain, safe, and effec-
tual.
   2d.  That he so applied it  as to satisfy the medical profession of
its utility.
   3d. And that he so published it as to bring it into general use.
   Now, I appeal to all  candid and impartial men, 1 submit to an
intelligent  public, whether in the then state of medical science as
I have shown it, these three conditions were not necessary to con-
stitute a just title to the honor and reward which is here claimed.
   I will now proceed to an examination of the evidence, and en-
deavor  to ascertain, therefrom, whether any or all of these con-
ditions were fulfilled by Dr. Wells.

  Total absence of any publication until Dr.  Morton's success was
                            known.
   And, in the first place, it is worthy of remark that, in the case
of Dr. Wells, we have  not  one stroke of pen or pencil by him,
either in a private  memorandum,  friendly letter, or  published
essay, in which he claims  to have had any knowledge, or to have
made any use of sulphuric ether, prior to his letter of December
7th, 1846, at which date  America and Europe rang with the fame
of the then new discovery,  of  its  perfect anaesthetic qualities.
Nor does he in that letter claim to have  done any thing more
than to have thought of it,  spoken of it to Dr. Marcy, and, by 
12
 his advice,  to have rejected it.  But  in  his  letter  published in
 Galignam's Messenger, of February 7,  1847, he says : "Since this
 discovery was  made, 1 have administered the nitrous oxyd and
 sulphuric ether to  about fifty patients," leaving it to be inferred
 by a cursory reader, but byno means saying that  he tried sul-
 phuric ether before it was brought into public use by Dr. Morton.
 This equivocal statement of Dr. Wells, if it be understood to ex-
 tend to the use of sulphuric ether prior  to September 30, 1846,
 is supported only by  the testimony of John G.  Wells, taken with-
 in the present winter.  He says:
   "On this occasion  sulphuric ether was administered by Dr.
 Wells.  I am quite sure it was early  in 1845, a long time ante-
 rior to the  period  when Dr. Morton, of Boston, first announced
 his discovery.  The ether was unpleasant in its  effects, though
 the tooth was extracted without pain.  I therefore advised  my
 friends not  to use it, but rather the exhilarating gas."

  Claim in  1853 that  Dr. Wells had  used  Ether, refuted by Dr.
                     Wells himself in  1847.
   But this  testimony is subject  to  several difficulties—1st.  Dr.
 Wells, in publishing his discovery December  7th, 1846, does  not
 pretend to have ever administered sulphuric ether.
   2d. This same witness testified in March,  1847, and does  not
 pretend, in his then testimony, that sulphuric  ether was ever ad-
 ministered to him.  His deposition is as follows:
                                  Hartford, March 26, 1847.
   I hereby testify that, more than  two years prior to this date,
 on  being informed that Horace Wells, dentist, of this city, had
 made  a valuable discovery, by  which means he could extract
 teeth without pain to the patient, which consisted in  the use of
 stimulating gas, or vapor, I inhaled  the exhilerating gas, and un-
 der  its influence, had  six  extracted without the least pain.  I
 would further state, that for more than eighteen months from the
 time I first submitted to this operation by the application of gas,
 I heard no  other name mentioned as  the discoverer, except that
 of the above-named Horace Wells.
                                J. GAYLORD WELLS,
                                            184^ Main street.
   3d.  And Dr. Wells, on his  return  from  Europe  in 1847, dis-
i tinctly stated to Professor Hayward that  he never had operated
 on a subject under the influence of sulphuric ether.  Dr. Hay-
 ward said, in answer to to interrogatory:
    16th. Did you have a conversation with Dr. Horace Wells, of
 Hartford, on the subject of anaesthesia?  If yea, when, and who
 was present ?   Please give the whole  conversation.
    Ans. He called at my  house after his return from France;
 after we had begun  to use the ether  as an  anaesthetic.  There
 was no one present but Dr.  Wells and myself.  It was in my 
13
study.   I then asked him if he had ever used sulphuric ether by
inhalation, so as to render  any one insensible to pain, and per-
formed  any surgical operation on  the  individual while in that
state.   His answer was that he had not.
  Again: Dr. Wells in his  letter of February 7, 1847, to Galig-
nanVs Messenger, says:
  "The less atmospheric air admitted into  the  lungs with, any
gas or vapor, the better; the more  satisfactory will be the result
of the operation."
  From this it is evident he  knew nothing of the properties or
use of sulphuric  ether.  It  will not support respiration, and the
patient who should breathe it without a mixture of atmospheric
air, would be instantly suffocated to death.  Dr. Wells could never
have used it, for if he had, he would have killed his patient.
   An  assertion to the effect that  he had so used  it prior to his
letter  of  December 7, 1846, would  have  been entitled  to  no
credit  in  the face of that letter, but he does not  make  it,  and
it would  perhaps be  doing him  injustice  to suppose  that, by
his vague and  indefinite  language,  he intended  it  should be
so understood.. It is, however, sufficient for the  purpose of this
inquiry that there is neither assertion or  proof that he  even
tried an  experiment with sulphuric  ether  prior to Dr. Morton's
discovery, September 30th,  1846; that  he  thought  of  it,  and
spoke  of  it, if it  be conceded that he did so, prior to that time,
is a matter  of no importance.  Nor if he  in fact made experi-
ments with sulphuric  ether, does it  amount to  any thing more
than this: that he  discredited  it instead of approving it, as an
anceslhctic agent.   He does not intimate in either of his letters
that he communicated his conception as to sulphuric ether, if any
such he then had to either Dr. Morton or Dr. Jackson.  Dr. Wells,
therefore, is entitled to nothing so far as merit depends upon dis-
covering  and making public the use of sulphuric ether as a safe,
certain, and effectual anaesthetic agent.   His claims are there-
fore necessarily limited to his development of the anaeesthetic
properties of nitrous oxyd, and  to the use which he made of that
agent  and the introduction  into public use while he gave it.

        Dr.  Wells's experiments confined to Nitrous Oxyd.

   On this particular agent he wrote and published nothing prior
to December 7, 1816, when there  had  been  made  known to and
received by the world at large an acknowledged safe,  certain,
and efficient anaesthetic agent—sulphuric  ether—then he wrote
and set up his claim;  I give it at length in  his own words.
                      From the Hartford Courant.
                                 Hartford, December 7, 1846.
   Mr. Editor: You  are aware that there  has been much said
of late respecting a gas, which, when inhaled, so paralyzes the 
14
system as to  render it insensible to pain  The Massachuset s
General Hospital have adopted its use, and amputations are now
being performed without pain.   Surgeons generally, throughout
the country, are anxiously waiting to know what it is, that they
mav make a trial of it, and many have already done so with
uniform success.  As Drs. Charles T. Jackson  and \\. 1. U. Mor-
ton,  of Boston, claim to be the originators of this invaluable
discovery, I will give a short history of its introduction, that the
public may decide to whom belongs the honor.               ,
  While reasoning from analogy, I was led to believe that tne
inhaling of any exhilarating gas, sufficient to  cause  a great ner-
vous excitement, would so paralyze the system  as  to render it
insensible to pain, or  nearly so, for  it is well  known  that when
an individual is very  much excited  by passion, he scarcely leels
the severe wound which may at the time be inflicted, and the in-
dividual who is said to be'" dead drunk," may receive  severe
blows, apparently without the least pain, and when in this state
is much more tenacious of life  than when  in the natural state.
I accordingly resolved to try the experiment of inhaling an exhil-
arating gas myself, for the purpose  of having a tooth extracted.
I then obtained some  nitrous oxyd gas, and requested Dr. J. M.
Riggs to perform the operation, at the  moment when I  should
give the signal, resolving to have the tooth extracted  before losing
all consciousness.  This experiment proved to be perfectly  suc-
 cessful—it was attended with  no  pain whatever.   I then per-
 formed the same operation on twelve or fifteen others, with the
 same results.
   I was so much elated with the discovery, that I started imme-
 diately for Boston, resolving to give it into the hands of proper
 persons, without  expecting to derive any pecuniary benefit there-
 from.  I called on Drs. Warren and Haywood, and  made  known
 to them the result  of the experiments  I  had made.  They ap-
 peared to be interested in the matter, and treated me with much
 kindness and attention.   I was invited by Dr. Warren to address
 the medical class upon the subject at the close of his lecture.
   I accordingly embraced the  opportunity, and took occasion to
 remark that the same result would be produced, let the  nervous
 system  be  excited sufficiently  by any means whatever;  that I
 had made use of nitrous oxyd gas, or  protoxyd  of  nitrogen, as
 being the most harmless.  I was then invited to administer it to
 one of the  patients, who was expecting to have a limb  ampu-
 tated.
    I remained some two or three days in Boston for this  purpose,
 but the patient decided not  to  have the operation performed at
 that time.   It was then  proposed  that I should administer it to
 an individual for the purpose of extracting a  tooth.   Accordingly,
 a large number  of  students, with  several physicians, met to see
 the operation  performed—one of their number to be a patient.
 Unfortunately for the experiment, the gas  bag was by mistake 
15
withdrawn much too soon, and he was but partially under its in-
fluence when the tooth was extracted.  He testified that he ex-
perienced some pain, but not as much as usually attends the op-
eration.  As there was no other patient present, that the experi-
ment might be repeated,  and as  several expressed their opinion
that it was a humbug  affair, (which, in fact, was all the thanks
I got for this gratuitous service,) I accordingly left the next morn-
ing for home.  While in  Boston I conversed with Drs. Charles T.
Jackson and W. T. G.  Morton upon the subject, both of whom
admitted it to be entirely new to them.   Dr. Jackson expressed
much surprise that severe operations could be performed without
pain, and these  are  the  individuals who claimed to be  the in-
ventors.
  When I commenced  giving the gas, I noticed one very remark-
able circumstance attending  it, which was, that those who sat
down resolving  to have  an operation performed under its influ-
ence, had no disposition to exert the muscular system in the least,
but would  remain quiet  as  if partially asleep.   Whereas, if the
same individuals were to inhale  the gas under any other circum-
stances, it would seem impossible to restrain them from over ex-
 ertion.
  I would here remark, that when I was deciding what exhilara-
ting agent to use for this purpose, it immediately occurred to me
that it would be best to use nitrous  oxyd gas, or sulphuric ether.
I advised with Dr. Marcy, of this city, and  by his advice I con-
tinued to use the former, as being the least likely to do injury,
although  it was  attended with  more  trouble in its  prepa-
ration.   If  Drs. Jackson   and   Morton  claim that  they are
something else, I reply that it is  the  same in principle if not in
name, and they cannot use anything  which  will produce  more
satisfactorjr results;  and I  made these results known to  both of
these individuals more than a year since.
  After making the above statement  of facts, I feave it  for the
public to decide to whom belongs the  honor of the discovery.
                            Yours, truly,
                        HORACE WELLS, Surgeon Dentist.

  Dr. Wells's first object in this paper was  to  present his own
claims; they were fresh and  recent,  and  his mind was  in a fit
condition to appreciate them fully ; it is reasonable, therefore, to
suppose that he  presented them in all their length and breadth—
and in it he does not pretend that he  had  ever used or tried sul-
phuric ether as an anaesthetic  agent.  It is safe, therefore, to con-
clude that he never had.  His second object, connected with the
first, was to depreciate the claims  of Drs. Morton and Jackson,
whom he then considered as his  rivals.  We see by his last para-
graph, that he was aware  that Dr. Morton was using  sulphuric
ether as an  anesthetic agent, but he does  not pretend that it had
ever been used  by any other person  for the  like purpose.  It is 
16
safe, therefore, to conclude that it had not, within his knowledge.
He says that he suggested it to Dr. Marcy, who  advised  against
its use, so he continued the use of nitrous oxyd.  This first paper
is something nearer the time of his experiments, and also some-
thing nearer the truth, than  that  published in Galignani's Mes-
senger—yet a careful examination of this will show that it is very
far from containing a true presentation of the actual facts as they
occurred.

           Dr.  Wells " took his idea" from Dr. Cooley.
   And, first. One, on reading that paper, would be led to suppose
that Dr. Wells  was brought to the opinion of the anaesthetic pro-
perties of nitrous oxyd, and his choice of that element as a means
of producing anaesthesia, by an  elaborate process of inductive
reasoning;  whereas, in truth,  he  took it  from the suggestion of
Dr. Samuel A. Cooley, made to him during an exhibition of  the
"laughing  gas." I repeat  the paragraph of Dr. Wells's letter,
that the evidence may be applied  to it the more closely:
   "While  reasoning from analogy, I was led to  believe that  the
inhaling of any exhilarating gas, sufficient to cause a great ner-
vous excitement, would so paralyze the system as to render it in-
sensible to  pain, or nearly so—for it is well known that when an
individual is very much excited by passion, he scarcely feels  the
severe wound which may at the  time be inflicted, and the indi-
vidual who is said to be 'dead  drunk' may receive severe blows,
apparently without the least pain, and when in this state is much
more tenacious of life than when  in the natural state.  I  accord-
ingly resolved to try the experiment of inhaling an exhilarating
gas myself, for the purpose of having a tooth  extracted.   I then
obtained some nitrous oxyd gas, and requested Dr. J. M. Riggs to
perform the operation at  the moment when I should give  the sig-
nal, resolving to have the tooth extracted before loosing  all con-
sciousness.   This experiment proved to be perfectly successful—
it was attended with  no pain whatever.  I then performed  the
same operation  on  twelve or fifteen  others, with the same  re-
sults."
   On this particular point, in a deposition given at the request of
the representatives of Dr. Wells, Dr. Cooley says:
" State of  Connecticut,   )
      County of Hartford. )
   "I, Samuel A. Cooley, a citizen of Hartford, county of Hartford,
State of Connecticut, depose and  say, that on the evening of  the
10th day of  December, in the year 1844, that one G. Q. Colton
gave a public exhibition  in  the Union  Hall  in  the said city of
Hartford, to show the effect produced upon the human system by
the inhaling of nitrous oxyd or laughing gas; and, in accordance
with the request of several gentlemen, the said Colton did give a 
17
private exhibition on the morning  of December 11, 1844, at the
said hall; and that the deponent then inhaled a portion of said
nitrous oxyd gas, to ascertain its peculiar effect upon his system;
and that there were present at that time the said Colton, Horace
Wells, C. F. Colton, Benjamin Moulton, and several other gentle-
men, to the deponent  at  this time unknown;  and that the said
deponent, while under the influence of the said gas, did run against
and throw down several of the settees in said hall, thereby throw-
ing himself down, and causing several  severe  bruises upon his
knees and other parts  of his person; and that, after the peculiar
influence of said gas had subsided, his friends then present asked
if he had  not injured  himself, and then directed his attention to
the acts  which he had committed unconsciously while under the
operation of said  gas. He then found by examination that his
knees were severely injured ; and  he' then exposed his knees to
those present, and found that the skin was severely abrased and
broken;  and that the  deponent then remarked 'that he believed
that a person might get into a fight with several persons and not
know when he was hurt, so unconscious was a person of pain
while under the influence of the said gas ;' and the said deponent
further remarked,' that he believed that  if a person could be re-
strained, that he could undergo a severe surgical operation with-
out feeling any pain at the time.' Dr. Wells then remarked 'that
he believed that a person  could have a tooth extracted while un-
der  its influence,  and not experience any pain;' and the said
Wells further remarked 'that he had a wisdom tooth that trou-
bled him exceedingly, and if the said G. Q. Colton would fill his
bag with some of the gas, he would go up to his office and try
the experiment,' which the said  Colton did; and the said Wells,
C. F. Colton, and G. Q. Colton, and your deponent, and others at
this time unknown to said deponent, proceeded to the office of said
Wells; and that said  Wells there inhaled the gas, and a tooth
was extracted by Dr. Riggs, a dentist then present; and that the
said Wells, after the effect of the gas had subsided, exclaimed 'A
new era in tooth-pulling!'"
  On the same point G. Howell Olmstead, Jr., says:
  " In answer to your question, I would  state that I wish to ren-
der justice to all parties concerned.  Having been connected in
business  with  Dr.  Wells,  and being very intimate with  him, we
had  a great many  conversations  together about the effect of the
gas, and  in those conversations he always told me he derived his
first idea of the matter from remarks made by  Dr. S. A. Cooley,
at a private exhibition of  laughing gas, given at the Union  Hall,
in this city, in the winter of 1844 or 45; and that, from those
remarks, and what he witnessed  himself, he immediately applied
it to his own business."
  But enough  of this,  I do  not  use  it to depreciate the experi-
ments of Dr. Wells, for if the idea which he  attempted to carry
             2 
18
 out, and the means used by him were really worth  anything in
 his hands, it is of no importance where he  got them, but I refer
 to it to show that his statement of his own case cannot be relied
 on for full and perfect accuracy.
   In his letter, published in Galignani's Messenger, of February
 17, 1847, he  makes a still wider and less excusable  departure
 from the strict and exact fact.  After stating  the discovery and
 the performance of an operation on himself and twelve or fifteen
 others, he says:
  " Being a  resident of Hartford, Connecticut, (U. S.,) I proceeded
 to Boston the  following month, (December,) in order to  present
 my discovery to the medical faculty—first making it known to
 Drs. Warren, Hayward, Jackson and Morton, two last  of whom
 subsequently published the same, without mention  of our confer-
 ence.  Since this discovery was first made I have administered
 nitrous oxyd gas and the vapor of ether to about fifty patients,
 my operations having been limited  to  this small number in con-
 sequences of a protracted illness which immediately ensued on
 my return home from Boston, in January, 1845."
  Now it is  not at all true that either  Dr. Jackson or Dr. Morton
 "published the same," that is  to say,  Dr.  Wells' discovery of, or
 experiments on the anaesthetic properties of nitrous  oxyd, either
 with or without mentioning their conversation with him. But
 they published, as he well knew, a very different thing, a discovery
 which each of them claimed to have made; namely—that sulphu-
 ric ether was a safe, certain,  and efficient ancesthetic agent, and
 they each claimed, as his own, the introduction of the discovery
 into use, and approval  with  the medical profession. He seems
 willing also  to convey the idea that he had used sulphuric ether
 as an anaesthetic agent prior to September 30, 1846,  the date of
 Dr. Morton's public  announcement of this  discovery; but, as I
 have already shown, it is not  true  that he did so.   Dr. Wells
 says, in  this  paper, that  his operations were limited  to a small
 number of cases " in consequence of a protracted illness, which
 immediately ensued on  my return  home from Boston, in Janu-
 ary, 1845.'   This is not strictly true if it be  given as the whole
 cause of his  limited operations.

 Dr. Wells proclaims his experiment a failure, and abandons Ances-
                           thesia.
  Dr. Samuel A Cooley says  that  he conversed  with him just
after his return "from Boston, where he had made an  experiment
which had proved a failure."   The witness says:
  "He then said to me that he was disappointed in the effects of
the gas  and  that  it would not operate  as  we  had hoped and
thought it would, as there was no certainty to be  placed upon it;
hnlT. T&1 V? sho^ld abandon {t>as h* *ad *>  much other
cZZ!v*    ^k  V1"1 aVhe P» would not  operate in all
 cases alike, and therefore could not be trusted." 
19
  So that, although he may have been ill, in the year 1845, he
had made up his  mind to abandon his supposed discovery as a
failure, from the time of  his unsuccessful  experiment in Boston,
until the wonderful success and eclat of Dr. Morton's anaesthetic
agent, sulphuric ether, led  him to hope that he would be able
to contest with him the honor of the discovery.
  Mrs. Wells, who has testified in support of her deceased hus-
band's claim, sa^s:
  " For some months previous to the delivery of a course of chem-
ical lectures by Mr. G. Q,. Colton, in the city of Hartford, Decem-
ber, 1844, Dr. Wells had turned his attention to the discovery of
o me means of rendering  the  human system insensible to pain
snder dental  and surgical operations, and made several experi-
ments in mesmerism with reference to that object."
   And P. D.  Stillman says:
   "About the year  1844, I was frequently in  Dr. Wells's  room;
he was making experiments—some in mesmerism—also in gas."

        Success of Nitrous Oxyd dependent on Mesmerism.

   And it is well known  that about that time the world was full
of exactly that kind  of  experiment.  Dr. Wells appears to have
connected mesmerism in practice with the nitrous oxyd, making
out of the elements of both  the principal means by which he
brought about whatever success he in fact attained.
   " When I  commenced giving the gas,  I noticed  one  very re-
markable circumstance  attending it, which was, that those who
sat down resolving to have an operation  performed under its in-
fluence, had  no disposition to  exert the  musclar system  in the
least, but would  remain  quiet as if partially asleep.   Whereas, if
the same individuals were to inhale  the gas under any other cir-
cumstances, it would seem impossible to restrain them from over
exertion."
   And Dr. Marcy, one of the  principal witnesses  in support of
Dr. Wells' claim, in his  statement No. 4, speaking of one of Dr.
Wells' experiments, says:
   " By this experiment, two  important,  and to myself, entirely
new  facts, were demonstrated : 1st, that  the body could be ren-
dered insensible to pain, by the inhalation of a gas or vapor, cap-
 able  of producing certain effects  upon  the organism; and 2d,
 when such agents were  administered to a sufficient extent, for a
definite object, and with a suitable  impression  being previously
produced upon the mind, that no unusual mental excitement, or
 attempts at physical effort, would follow the inhalation."
   And there is no doubt whatever that in slight operations, such
 as those of dentistry, that the mentally prepared patient, who has
 a right understanding with the operator,  can by the force of im- 
20
agination and a strong effort of the will greatly modify the pro-
per physical effect of an agent such as this.  Hence the undoubt-
ed success in many cases of mesmerism when used  alone in sur-
gical operations.
  That Dr. Wells had a full appreciation of this great philosophic
truth is clear, from his parting advice to Dr. Cooley, from whose
insensibility  to pain when under the influence  of the "laughing
gas," he originally obtained his  conception of ancesthesia.   Dr.
Cooley in his second statement says, in reference to a partnership
into which he and Dr.  Wells had entered—
  " Ans. 6. The first intimation I  had that Dr. Wells did not  in-
tend to  carry out our partnership arrangement  with me, was
when he informed me, several weeks after this arrangement was
entered into between us, that he had just returned from Boston,
where he had made a public experiment which had proved a fail-
ure. He then said to me that he was  disappointed in the effects
of the gas, and that it would not  operate as we  had  hoped and
thought it would, as there was no certainty to be placed upon  it;
and, consequently, he should abandon it, as he had so much  other
business to  attend to, and  as  the  gas would not operate  in  all
cases alike,  and therefore could not be trusted.   He  advised  me
to go on with my exhibitions, and thought I  could make money
out of them, and that, although he had  got through with his  ex-
periments in the business, he would  assist  me  in  any way he
could, in or.ler that I might succeed in my lectures ;  and suggest-
ed to me to  connect with my lectures and administering the gas,
mesmerism, and  the use of a card of questions which he had pre-
pared—so arranged that  a correct answer could be given, by a
person in  an adjoining room, as  to the  time of  day, &c, by  the
particular manner in which the  question was  asked.  Feeling
some confidence that by following his suggestions 1 should realize
sufficient from the lectures  to  reimburse me  for my  time and  ex-
penses while in company with him, the matter was then dropped
between us, and I pursued my lectures."
  And it is  not at all surprising, that an anaesthetic  agent, which
required for  its  successful  exhibition  mesmeric  or other mental
preparation of the patient,  should fail when  tested in the Medi-
cal Hospital of Massachusetts.  Dr. Kiggs expresses the opinion,
in one of his numerous statements, that if the Medical Hospital,
which does  so much honor to the city of Boston,  had, with all its
learned Professors, been placed in Hartford, Dr. Wells would have
been the recognised discoverer of anaesthesia;  and  nitrous oxyd
would have been the great anaesthetic agent.   It strikes me as
much more probable,  if that  noble institution, with  its learned
Professors, had been in Hartford, that the nitrous oxyd, if it had
appeared for a moment, as  an  anaesthetic agent,  would not have
lived out its one short month, but that it would at an  earlier day
have met  the fate which  it  did meet at its first appearance in that
hospital.  Dr. Wells testifies to the kindness and attention  of the 
21
   Professors.  Dr.  Morton  aided  him with his instruments in his
   experiments, and there can be  no just pretence of partiality or
   unfairness.  His experiment there, by his own admission, was a
   failure, and he therefore determined to abandon the use of this
   gas as uncertain  and unreliable.

   Dr. Wells notoriously relinquishes his experiments in January, 1845.
      That he did abandon it is understood.  His first publication af-
   ter he returned from Europe, March 30, 1847, does not claim to
   have used it ^after his failure in  Boston, but  apologizes  for his
   omission to do so.  He says:
      " The question  is  asked, why so much time has  elapsed since
   its first discovery, without its coming into more general use, I can
   only say, that I have used my utmost endeavors, from the first, to
   influence physicians  and surgeons to make a trial of it, assuring
   them that my operations were  numerous, and perfectly  success-
   ful.   But all were fearful of doing some serious injury with it;
   and not wishing  to incur the responsibility of administering this
   powerful agent without the co-operation of the medical faculty,
   and also for  the reason that I was obliged to relinquish  my pro-
   fessional business in consequence of ill health, my operations  have
   been somewhat limited."
      Dr. Wells was afraid to  administer the nitrous  oxyd  without
   the  " co-operation of the medical faculty."  But they would not
   co-operate.  Of them he says:  "All were fearful of doing  some
   serious injury with it."  That is true.  So they were, and  so they
   would be now if its use were again proposed.  The medical fac-
   ulty are, as a body, cautious, but not timid.  They were afraid to
   use nitrous oxyd, lest they should do serious injury with  it; but
   they were not afraid to  use sulphuric  ether when its anaesthetic
   qualities  were made known to them.  They received  the an-
   nouncement of its discovery with shouts of exultation ; there was
   an end of pain, and end of mesmerism as a pain subduing agent;
   and it  was at Once  received  into  universal uso  by the  medical
   faculty.
      And  the witnesses speak of it as a  thing understood, that Dr.
*  Wells ceased his  experiments and  gave up the pursuit until after
   the time the discovery of Dr. Morton had obtained  universal use
   and celebrity.
      Dr. Ellsworth,  speaking of his failure in Boston in the winters
   of 1844-5, says:
      " He  presented it to Dr. Warren, who laid  it before his class,
   but the experiment first  attempted partially failing,  and no one
   seeming willing to lend him an helping hand, he  ceased  making
   any further personal efforts."
      Dr. Cooley says:
      " I knew of Dr. Wells  going  to Boston, soon after the noise in
   the papers of the  discovery of the effects of ether by you, in 1846, 
22
and had a conversation with him, on his return, about  your dis-
covery.  He made no claim to me of the discovery being his ; but,
on the contrary, expressed regrets that  we had not continued our
experiments to a successful termination."

  Howell Olmstead, junr.t says:
  "During the winter of 1845  and spring of 1846, Dr.  Wells
made application for a patent for a 'shower bath,' in  his name,
which Col.  Thos. Roberts  claimed to  be equally interested in.
Their respective claim was left to the decision of Francis Parson,
Esq., of this city, and decided in Dr. Wells' favor.   I then made
arrangements with Dr. Wells to  travel  and  dispose  of rights to
manufacture his baths, and at that time I considered that he had
abandoned the thing entirely, as he expressed himself to me that
the operation in some cases proved a perfect failure, and spoke of
his unsuccessful  trial in Boston in 1845.  *  *  *  *
  " About this time the effects  of ether  had become public in
Boston, and he expressed himself as being  very sorry that he had
not prosecuted his experiments to a successful termination ; and
he  also regretted his stopping the matter when he did,  for he
thought an immense fortune might  be  made out of the business,
and that  the discovery would reflect great honor upon the dis-
coverer."

      Dr. Wells cordially recognises Dr. Mortoris discovery.

   It is very certain too, that Dr. Wells, at the time Dr. Morton's
discovery was communicated to  him, and thereafter, until the as-
 sured success of that discovery astonished,  and  overwhelmed him,
Tecognised the kind and friendly acts of Dr. Morton toward him-
 self, and did not conceive himself injured by Dr. Morton's having
 made and claimed the honor of discovering a safe  and practical
 anaesthetic  agent.  Witness his  letter to Dr. Morton of October,
 1846, in reply to one of Dr. Morton, informing him  of his dis-
 covery and his  advice to Dr. Morton, given  in the presence of
 R. H. Eddy.  They are as follows:

                   "Hartford, Connecticut, October 20, 1846.
   "Dr. Morton—Dear Sir: Your letter dated yesterday, is just
 received, and I hasten to answer it, for I fear you will adopt  a
 method in disposing of your rights, which will defeat your  object.
 Before you make any arrangements whatever, I wish to see you.
 I think I will  be in Boston the first of next  week—probably
 Monday night.  If the operation of administering the  gas is not
 attended with too  much trouble, and will  produce the effect you
 state, it will, undoutedly, be  a fortune  to you, provided it  is
 rightly managed.
                      " Yours, in haste,         H. WELLS." 
23
  Here follows the statement of R. H. Eddy, Esq., as to the inter-
view between Drs. Morton and Wells:

           Interview between Drs. Morton and Wells.
                                "Boston, February 17, 1847.
  "R. H. Dana, Esq—Dear Sir:  In reply  to your  note  of this
morning, I have to state that about the time I  was engaged in
preparing the papers for the procural of the patent, in the United
States, on the discovery of Dr. Morton for preventing pain in sur-
gical operations, by the inhalation of the vapor of sulphuric ether,
1 was requested by Dr. Morton to call at his office to have an in-
terview with the late Dr. Horace Wells, who was then on a visit
to this city, and who, Dr. Morton thought, might be able to render
him valuable advice and assistance in regard to  the mode of dis-
posing of privileges to use the  discovery.   Accordingly I had an
interview with Dr. Wells.  During such meeting we conversed
freely on the discovery, and in relation  to the  experiments Dr.
Wells had been witness to in the office of Dr. Morton.   The  de-
tails of our conversation I do not  recollect sufficiently to attempt
to relate them, but the whole of it, and the manner of Dr. Wells
at the time, led me, in  no respect, to any suspicion that he (Dr.
Wells) had ever  before been aware of the then  discovered effect
of ether in annuling pain during a surgical operation.  Dr. Wells
doubted the ability of Dr. Morton to procure a patent—not on the
ground that he (Dr. Morton) was  not the  first and original dis-
coverer, but that he (Dr. Wells) believed the discovery was not
a legal subject for a patent.  He advised him, however, to make
application for one, and to dispose of as many licenses as he could
while such application might be  pending;  in  fact, to make as
 much  money out of the discovery as he could, while the excite-
 ment in regard to it might last. I must  confess that when, some
 time afterwards, I heard of the pretensions of Dr. Wells to be con-
 sidered the discoverer of the aforementioned effect of ether, 1 was
 struck with great surprise, for his whole conversation with me, at
the time of our interview, led  me to the belief  that he fully^and
 entirely recognized the discovery to have been made by Dr. Mor-
 ton, or at least partly by him and  partly by Dr.  C. T. Jackson, as
 I then supposed.
         rr                       " Respectfully yours,
                                            R.  H. EDDY."

   From this letter, and from the  conversation above detailed, it
 is clear that Dr.  Wells not only did not feel himself wronged by
 Dr. Morton, but that he did not think himself in possession of an
 available anesthetic agent.  He could not fail  to.know and on
 his return home he  declarded he  did  know  that  Dr. Mortons
 "compound" was sulphuric ether, and  his conversation on  this
 occasion also shows  that he did not then claim to  have been the
 discoverer of its application as an anaesthetic agent. 
24
   Further recognition of Dr. Morton's discovery by Dr. Welts.
   It shows, also, that he thought Dr. Morton's discovery as well
 as his own, a humbug, though he does  not  say so.  He was ap-
 prised that  Dr.  Morton was about to apply for a patent, and  he
 did not believe  he would get one.  He advised him to sell licen-
 ses while his application was pending, and make as much money
 out of it as he could while  the excitement lasted—very like the
 advice which he gave to Dr. Cooley as to the use he should make
 of the nitrous oxyd.   He was evidently impressed with the belief
 that the success of Dr. Morton's anaesthetic agent depended, also,
 to some extent, on the mental preparation of the patients.

    Dr. IVells and friends lose all confidence in Nitrous Oxyd.
   But I am  prepared to show, beyond all cavil, that neither Dr.
 Wells nor Dr. Riggs, nor Dr. Marcy, had any confidence in nitrous
 oxyd as an anaesthetic agent.  They did not believe it to be efficient,
 and at the same time, safe.  They had used it only in dental ope-
 rations prior to the discovery of Dr. Morton, and they were satis-
 fied, that in those operations, it ought not to  be used.
   The Hon. James Dixon, an intelligent man—a member of Con-
 gress, and the friend and advocate of Dr. Wells, thus testifies:

   Ques. Did you  ever have a conversation with Dr. Wells  in
 regard to the use of nitrous oxyd, in which he discouraged its use
 by you in having teeth extracted ; if so, state fully the conversa-
 tion ?
   Ans.  I had repeated  conversations with  Riggs  and  Wells.
 Think both said that for so slight an operation as pulling teeth
 they would not advise its use, but that in severe surgical opera-
 tions, as amputation, it should be used, but in slight operations it
 was not best to run the risk of using the gas.

   Mr. Dixon was a man whose life and health were  of value,
 it would not do,  therefore, to overdose him with nitrous oxyd, lest
 it should superinduce asphyxia.   He was an intelligent  man 'who
 could not by previous mental discipline be  induced to  feel no
 pain, or  pretend that he felt  none, under  the influence of  a
 moderate  and safe inhalation; those gentlemen, therefore, both
 advised him, and I have no doubt honestly and  well that "in
 slight operations" as pulling of teeth, "it was not best to run the
 risk of using the gas," and there was not much probability of his
 calling on them to administer it "in a severe surgical operation,"
 but if he  had so called, I have no doubt they would both, as hon-
estly  and more decisively,  have  advised him against its use
Indeed, in some  few cases, in slight  operations, and on probably
peculiar constitutions  the operation  of the gas appears to have
been successful  and innocent.   But we have  here  the distinct
avowal of both Drs. Wells and Riggs, that they did not con de
it generally so, but thought its effects ought  not to  be  hazarded 
25
except in severe surgical operations.  Why did they not tell all
their  customers so?  If they had  done this  the  writer  of  the
" Examination" might, with some show of propriety, have talked
of their "sincerity, rectitude, truth, and honor."
   Entertaining the opinions which they did entertain, and  which,
when consulted by an intelligent man and a friend, they both ex-
pressed, how could  these men  hold  out the  false pretence which
they were  then holding  out to  the public?  How dare they ad-
minister their dangerous nostrum to patients, who, though per-
haps  poor  and ignorant, have human feelings and human souls,
and who relied the more fully because of their  own want of
knowledge, on the truth of their  physicians, and trusted their own
lives  and health, and the lives and health of their wives and chil-
dren the more implicitly in their hands?  It seems, however, that
they could do so, and yet, in the opinion  of the  writer  of  the
"Examination," be men of "sincerity, rectitude, truth, and honor."
   Mr. Dixon was not mistaken in his recollection, nor is he, on
another occasion, much nearer the time of its occurrence, detailed
a  similar conversation  with Dr. Wells to  Mr. Edward Warren,
who testifies to it as follows:

Further proof  that Dr. Wells had  abandoned the  use of Nitrous
                            Oxyd.
   " 1st. Do you recollect a conversation in Washington with Hon.
James Dixon?   When and what was it ?
   "Ans. While in Washington, endeavoring to induce our Gov-
ernment to introduce this discovery into the army in Mexico, and
after getting the matter  referred to a  select committee  of  the
House of Representatives, I learned with some surprise, that the
Hon. James Dixon, a member of Congress from Connecticut, and
townsman of Dr. Wells, had sent in a sort of informal protest to
the committee's further proceedings, until a constituent of his, Dr.
Wells, had furnished certain testimony in  his  favor.  This was
early in January.  I immediately called on Mr. Dixon, who stated
that Dr. Wells had requested his assistance, and had promised to
furnish him certain evidence of his claims; but, having gone to
Europe without procuring it, he did not  think it would arrive at
all, and, if not by a certain day, then near at hand, he would aid
me in my efforts; at the same time saying, as near  as I can recol-
lect, that, about two  years before,  he had heard that Dr. Wells
was making some experiments with nitrous oxyd gas, to prevent
pain  in  extracting teeth; that, having a severe  toothache, he
called on him, proposing to take this gas, but that Dr. Wells in-
formed him that, after giving it to thirteen or fourteen patients,
with  only partial success, he had abandoned its use as dangerous,
and dissuaded him from resorting to it." 
26
Nitrous Oxyd discredited as an Anaesthetic  agent by Dr.  Wells's
                        experiments.
  Dr. Marcy, with  whom Dr. Wells counselled much, and who
operated in and reported  the operation on  the scirrous  testicle
above referred to, under the influence of the nitrous  oxyd, and
certifies to the success  of the operation, entertained  the same
opinion  with Doctors Wells and Riggs.   He did not believe that
nitrous  oxyd was at the same time safe  and  efficacious as  an
anaesthetic agent.  In an article published in the Journal of Com-
merce, December 30, 1846, when the medical world was  active
with Dr. Morton's discovery, he says:
  " My own opinion in regard to the use of  the nitrous oxyd gas,
the sulphuric ether,  or an other stimulant, which acts upon the
system in such a manner as to render the body  insensible to ex-
ternal impressions,  is, that it is decidedly unsafe, and  that in  no
given case  can we be certain  that it will not cause congestion of
the brain or lungs.  I have known the use of both the first named
articles to give rise  to temporary congestion of the brain  and  in-
sanity."
  He was so well  satisfied that nitrous oxyd was a failure, that
he could have  no faith in any anaesthetic agent.
  The state of the discovery then stands thus:  On the  7th day of
December, 1846, two months after Dr. Morton's announcement, Dr.
Wells claims to have administered the nitrous oxyd as an anaesthe-
tic agent in twelve  or fifteen ordinary cases of dentistry, at Hart-
ford.  He formed the opinion, and he expressed it to the Hon. Mr.
Dixon, that it was dangerous and ought not to be used in  such slight
cases.   His nearest and most intimate  friend and supporter, Dr.
Riggs, expressed the same opinion.  Dr. Wells  had tried it once
in the  Medical  Hospital of  Boston—it proved a failure.   On
his return to  Hartford  he told Dr.  Cooley, with whom  he had
agreed to form a partnership for its use, that " it would not ope-
rate  as we hoped and thought it would, as there was no certainty
to be placed in it; and consequently he should  abandon its use,"
and he did abandoned it and go into other business;  dealing in
patents for sifters  for coal ashes; bath-tubs,  and finally deal-
ing in pictures.  Not more than one or two  cases of his use of the
nitrous oxyd in tooth pulling  is even doubtfully proved after  his
return from Boston, in the winter of 1844-45 ; and except in  the
case of his exhibition at Boston he had  never extended its use be-
yond the circle of his own friends  in the city of Hartford; and
if he, or any of the small circle of friends who took  their opin-
ions  on  the subject  from him, thought or  said anything about
sulphuric ether, it was merely to pronounce it inferior to  nitrous
oxyd for the purpose of  anaesthesia.
  Now let us suppose that all he did, and all he thought, and
what he said on this subject to his confidential friends, as far as we
have been  able to gather it from the evidence, had been laid at 
27
once before the medical profession  of  America  and Europe,
would they have received it; would they have been justified in re-
ceiving it as a discovery of practical  anaesthetic qualities in ni-
trous oxyd ? Would they, as the professional  and trusted protec-
tors and preservers of human  life and human health have been
justified in bringing it at once into general use in their practice 1
A negative answer to these questions, and a negative they must
have,  answers  away Dr. Wells'  claim.  Anaesthesia generally
had gained nothing by his experiments, they did not stand as well
as the  reported experiments of Mr. Daunol with the ingredients
of the  spongi somnifera.  Nitrous oxyd did not stand  as well in
his hands as it did when it came out  of the  hands  of Sir Hum-
phry Davy.  Dr. Wells did not prove  that  nitrous oxyd was  a
safe, certain, and efficient anaesthetic agent, and he did not reason-
ably satisfy the medical  profession that it was so.   On the con-
trary, he proved to his own satisfaction that it was not either
certain, efficient, or safe, and the  only instance in which he pre-
sented it to a medical public out of his  own  circle of private
friends was that in the Medical Hospital at Boston, where it was
considered a "humbug"  This is all that  Dr. Wells had done for
anaesthesia prior to the discovery by Dr. Morton; and the public an-
nouncement of that discovery, and its universal and enthusiastic
reception by the learned medical faculties of Europe and America.

  Attempt to rival Sulphuric Ether by a revival of Nitrous Oxyd.
   Subsequent to that time a  faint effort was  made by Doctor
Wells and a few of his professional friends in Hartford, to revive
the  use of nitrous oxyd as an anaesthetic agent—to extend its
use and make it a rival to sulphuric ether—evidently with  the
hope of being able to  connect subsequent  experiments, if they
could make them successful, with the  past, which  so far failed
that they were abandoned, and of the  two to make out the first
available  discovery.   Dr. Cooley in answer to interogatories, says :
   "Ques. You say, moreover, that you administered  gas when
requested so to do by surgeons  and  dentists. Was not this sub-
sequent to the ether discovery ?
   " Ans. 8.  Yes, it was after the  ether discovery, in 1846, that 1
administered the gas for surgeons and dentists—there then being
an attempt, by us  all, to renew the experiments, as the public  and
ourselves had lost confidence and doubted the practicability of the
thing,  until the successful introduction of ether.  I administered
gas for Dr. Ellsworth, an intimate friend of Wells, and also to
several others."

Second failures of Dr. Wells  in attempting to introduce Nitrous
       J                    Oxyd.
   The  first attempt  of  which  we have  any proof,i beyond  the
slight operation  of pulling teeth, for  which Dr. Wells had, as al-
ready  shown, condemned its  use, was  by Dr.  E. Marcy, on the 
28
17th of August,  IS 17.  He pronounces the operation successful.
It was in its nature a very brief one—the removal of a scirrous
testicle.  This patient, he says, did, at  the first incision, manifest
some pain, but afterwards, till the operation ended, there was not
the slightest  consciousness.   Dr.  Wells administered the gas.
The object of the experiment with the gas, was to make it a
rival of sulphuric ether, already established  in the profession.  It
was intended to make and prove a case—a foregone conclusion in
the minds of all present except the subject of the operation ; from
him we hear nothing.  If prudence had dictated it, his certificate
or affidavit might have been  taken ; but it was not.   Dr. Taft,
however, forgetting the slight manifestation of pain  testified to
by Dr. Marcy, says the  part  was  removed without pain to  the
patient.
  The next  in the order of time, is the case  of Goodale, whose
thigh was amputated by Dr. Ellsworth on the  1st of January,
1848, in the presence of Drs.  Hall  and Hawley.   Dr. Wells
administered the gas.
  Dr. Ellsworth commences his report of the case with an apology:
"The lad was in a very  unpleasant state of mind, being greatly
alarmed  at  the  number  of persons standing  round, yet ten or
twelve inspirations rendered him  perfectly  quiet."   He had sen-
sation during the sawing of the bone, but Dr. Ellsworth thinks it
was not pain.   The effect of the gas went  off before the opera-
tion was completed; the lad complained bitterly, and the gas had
to be again administered, which made him quiet.  On the whole,
Dr. Ellsworth thinks it a favorable operation.
  Dr. Hall says, "the boy during the operation  was entirely quiet"
and he thinks  the operation " very successful."  In this he does
not agree with Dr.  Ellsworth, unless  in his  opinion the whole
operations consisted in lopping off the  limb.  Dr. Hawley says
" this operation was performed  with, apparently, little suffering
by the boy; and on inquiry after the operation, he replied that he
felt no pain when the limb was amputated."  The boy's certifi-
cate or affidavit  was not originally taken  by Dr. Wells, but he
was afterwards examined in  behalf of Dr. Morton, and testified
as follows:
  Ques. What is your residence, age, and occupation ?
  Ans. I reside in East  Hartford, my age  nineteen years, am a
cigar maker.
  Ques.  Have you had a leg amputated, by whom and when, and
was anything  administered to you  to prevent pain, if yea, when
and by whom ?
   Ans. I had a leg amputated by Dr. Ellsworth, I think 1st of
January, 1848 ; something was given me to prevent  pain by Dr.
Wells, I inhaled it from a bag.
  Ques.  How many times did you inhale from the bag ?
   Ans. Twice.
  Ques.  Will you state whether  Ellsworth requested  Dr. Wells
to give it again because you were in much pain ? 
29
  Ans. He did.
  Ques. What did Dr. Wells say when Dr. Ellsworth requested
him to give more gas?
  Ans. He said he thought it would not be best  as I was too
weak to have any more.
  Ques. Did Dr. Wells decline giving any more ?
  Ans. He did.
  His deposition was again taken  in behalf of Dr. Wells' repre-
sentatives January 25, 1853, and is as follows:

   Deposition of Henry A. Goodale, of  Hartford, Connecticut.
  " I, Henry A. Goodale, of Hartford, being of lawful  age, depose
and say: That I resided in East Hartford in 1848, at which time,
oij the 1st January, my leg was cut off by Dr. Ellsworth in the
presence of Dr. E, Hall, Dr. H. Wells, Henry Kilbourn, and others,
but I do not  remember who at the exact time of the operation.
Dr. Wells gave the gas out of a large  bag.  I was afraid in first
to take the gas, but finally was pursuaded so to do.  Do not remem-
ber being taken up and brought to the edge of the bed.  Remember
seeing the knife, but not until  the operation was over.  Do not
remember when the knife entered the flesh, did not remember
when the knife was cut out, think 1 felt a kind of jar when the
bone was sawed.  Do not  remember when Dr. Ellsworth cut off
the large nerve, but remember taking gas several  times.  Was not
sensible of suffering during the cutting and sawing.  When Dr.
E. began  to sew up the wound it hurt me .a great  deal, and I
asked for  the gas, do not know whether  more was given  or not.
I felt pain after the leg was taken off while it was being dressed,
and after  1 was put bade into bed.  Do not think that I felt any
pain until the  leg was off.   Am sure I  was a great deal better off
for taking the gas, than I  should have been otherwise.   I think
the gas was given twice and refused once when I asked for it.  I
think some one said I was too weak to bear any  more;  this was
while the stitches were being taken.   Do not remember with cer-
tainty who said I was too  weak.   I stated in a former deposition,
if I  remember right, in reply to  the question, "whether  I expe-
rienced pain during the whole operation," that I did.  I think this
has  been  misunderstood, for I did not mean that  I  experienced
pain continually during the operation, but merely that during the
operation there was a time when I experienced pain, and that
was during the dressing and tying the  arteries, meaning the time
after the leg was removed, but not the whole time when Dr. E.
began to cut until  the stump was done  up, but  only during the
part as before  expressed toward the close, during  the dressing and
tying the arteries.
 J                              "HENRY A.  GOODALE."
Hartford,  January 25, 1853.
  Sworn before                       H. L. RIDER,  N. P. 
30
   The whole case, as  reported and  proved, shows what may be
 not inaptly called a bungling operation.  The anaesthesia was
 imperfect, and not continuous—the boy had  sensation and suf-
 fered pain—and Dr. Wells was evidently afraid, and with good
 reason, so to administer the gas as to make insensibility perfect,
 and he dared not continue it to the close of the operation.
   The next and last case  was that of Mary Gabriel, to whom Dr.
 Wells administered " the gas," and from whose right shoulder Dr.
 S. B. Berresford removed  a fatty tumor weighing 6^ ounces.  We
 have the affidavit of the  patient: a perfect state  of  anaesthesia
 was produced, closely bordering on  asphyxia, and  she felt  no
 pain ; but Dr. Berresford, who  is evidently a friendly though  an
 honest witness, testifies thus :

   Ques. Was the above operation as successful and satisfactory
 as any you have ever performed with any other anaesthetic agent ?
   Ans.  It was quite as successful as any, so far as destroying sen-
 sibility was concerned.
   Ques. You say the operation you have spoken of was quite  as
 successful as any you ever performed, so far as destroying sensi-
 bility was concerned.  In what was the operation not as  suc-
 cessful?
   Ans.  The patient was very faint and  depressed for about  half
 an hour after recovering her perception.
   Ques. Was not the  administration of the gas in this case at-
 tended with asphyxia?
   Ans.  I think not.
   Ques.  What was the appearance of the face of the  patient?
   Ans.  At this distance of time I cannot remember, to speak with
 precision.
   Ques.  Have you any idea that Dr. Wells ever perfected, and
 brought into general use, nitrous oxyd gas as an anaesthetic agent
 in surgical operations?
   Ans. No, sir;  I do not think he did.
   Ques. Is nitrous oxyd, in your judgment, a valuable anaesthetic
 agent in surgical operations ?
   Ans. I have never used  it, but in the case above alluded to, and
 give a decided preference  to chloroforn, in surgical operations.

   Dr. Berresford saw the danger of the inhalation  of nitrous
 oxyd until anaesthesia became perfect; and although he  thinks
 asphyxia was not produced in  this case, yet  he never  used the
 nitrous oxyd again, nor did any one else—that  was the end of its
 career as an anaesthetic agent.  It had run the race of its second
revival, and was a second time discredited and abandoned.
   The proof of this is inherent in the transaction itself, as  I have
briefly sketched  it; but there is also extrinsic evidence  of the
fact. 
31
  Cyrrel Bullock says:
  Ques.  Have you ever seen nitrous oxyd administered for the
purpose of extracting teeth ?  If yea, about what time, by whom,
and where, and was  it successful ?
  Ans. I have, about the year 1846 or 1847, at the house of Mr.
P. Holt, in this city, by S. A. Cooley.  It was not successful.  It
was administered that I might extract  some teeth, but it did  not
produce insensibility, and I did not extract the teeth.
  Ques.  What was the effect produced on the patient?
  Ans. She appeared wild and restless.
  Dr. Cooley says:
  " The  last  time that I exhibited it was to a lady at Dr. Green-
leaf's office, which, in a great measure, proved a failure, and then
ether and chloroform assumed the place of the  gas. and opera-
tions were more  successful in the use of them;  and since then I
have had but little to do with the matter, as other business has
taken up my  time and attention."
  And Dr. Greenleaf says of that exhibition:
  Ques.  Have you ever made use of nitrous oxyd gas in your den-
tal business, to prevent pain in extracting teeth?
  Ans.  No, sir.
  Ques.  Have you ever seen it administered ; and, if so, by whom,
and where ?
  Ans. I saw it administered  once,  by Dr. S. A. Cooley, which
produced vomiting.   This was at my office.
  Ques.  Was the experiment entirely unsuccessful 1
  Ans.  Yes.
  And this was the end.
  I have thus hastily sketched the process of reasoning which has
brought me to the opinion which I have already announced, as to the
respective claims of Dr. Wells and Dr. Morton, to the honor of hav-
ing given to his country and the world a safe, certain, and efficient
anaesthetic agent.  I could have wished to go  more fully and
minutely into the examination of the  question, but the near ap-
proach of the close of the session, and the consequent pressure of
business upon me, admonish me that I must have done.  And I
am gratified to be able to refer, in support of the  leading opinion
which I have expressed, to the appended  memorial signed by a
list of names  in the medical and surgical profession which would
do honor to any age or any country.

      Refutation of personal abuse in the "Examination."

  Before concluding, however, justice demands a vindication of
the character of Dr. Morton, libelled and villified as it is by the
author of the " Examination," and of this I will merely say:
  That the IXth head of the publication and the statements there-
in contained,  so far as they impeach the integrity and propriety of 
32
the conduct of Dr. Morton, or impute to him an attempt to silence
the Wells claim by money, are false.  Of this I am assured by the
persons whose  names  are vouched to substantiate the charges;
but as it will, doubtless, be a subject of future investigation, it is
not my province to enter upon it, even did time permit.
  Equally false are the assertions in the "Examination," that the
letter from Dr. Wells,  dated October 20, 1846, was  improperly
obtained from  him, and then printed in 1852, from a  copy fur-
nished by Dr. Morton, which differed in a material point from the
original.  His letter itself, was filed by the representatives of Dr.
Wells, from  which the  copy in the report was printed, the  com-
mittee themselves comparing it with the proof sheets.
  Another paragraph, on page 80, shows that the writer entirely
lost sight of the truth, in attempts to invest his arguments with spu-
rious strength, derived from an unhallowed alliance with slander-
ous invective.   Dr. Wells,  we are informed,  " perished by his own
hand, in  a paroxysm of insanity, induced, as many of his friends
believe, by the excitement and irritation of  this controversy with
Morton."'  Now, files of the  New York papers show that the un-
fortunate man committed suicide  in a prison cell, to which he had
been committed for throwing vitriol upon the daughters of shame
who promenade Broadway.   Yet his death is now unhesitatingly
laid at the door of Dr. Morton, with  an  envenomed elfrontery
rarely witnessed, which has  invited this statement of unfortunate
truths.
  In this same paragraph, after having thus outrageously defied
the dictates of truth and respect to the memory of the dead, the
writer indulges in one of the phantasies which his partisan ima-
gination  delights to conjure  up.   "Dr. Wells," we are  informed,
"did not live to receive the cheering news of the final recognition
of his claims by the highest medical authority of Europe."   What
was this tribunal I  The Institute.of Fiance, (which awarded to
Dr. Morton its largest gold medal)—the famed Medical College at
Paris—or one of the similar institutions in other large cities ?   Not
at all. We find on the preceding page a statement that the recog-
nition came from the " Parisian Medical Society"—a simple un-
chartered society, formed a few years since by English and Ameri-
can students, (with a few  exceptions,) who  united themselves in
a foreign land to rehearse their  exploits at  the dissecting table,
and to accustom themselves to converse about their profession.
And it is this social club which the author of  the " Examina-
tion" magnifies into  "the  highest medical authority in Europe."
Arguments like these, which have no foundation save in the posi-
tive imagination of their coiner, show  the  real weakness of the
cause they are intended to sustain, backed by gross libels and de-
famatory charges.
  It is in vain to attempt success by depreciating the character
or capacity of Dr. Morton.   He  is recognised wherever  known,
as a man of integrity and  honor, of great enterprise and of high 
33
capacity.  Conscious of his original claim to this glorious discov-
ery, he has decidedly asserted his rights when necessary, amidst
sore  buffettings  of fortune, and the close-cleaving malignity of
powerful adversaries, certain that he would eventually receive  a
universal  recognition of his position.  Institutions, learned men,
and able jurists, both at home and abroad, have gradually united
in awarding to him the  glory of a discovery that will solace his
declining  years, and impart to his memory a hallowed radiance,
as a benefactor  of the  human race.   He  proposed to the select
committee (as his  printed memorials on the files of the Senate
show) a projet of the bill now reported, referring the subject to the
decision of a judicial tribunal, and has ever avowed his readiness—
in the noble language of De Foe—" to stand or fall by the public
justice of his native land." 
 
                 MEMORIAL
                         OF THB


STJHGrEONS   AND   PHYSICIANS
                         OF THE

      MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL,

                   AT  BOSTON,
                          AND

   MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY,
                       IN SUPPORT OF

       THE CLAIM OF W.  T. G. MORTON, M. D,
                          FOR

             THE DISCOVERY OF ETHERIZATION.



To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives
                of the United States in Congress assembled:
   The undersigned hereby testify to your honorable bodies that, in
their opinion, Dr. William T. G. Morton first proved to the world
that  ether would produce  insensibility to the pain of surgical
operations, and that it could be  used with safety.  In their opin-
ion his fellow-men owe a debt to him for this knowledge. Where-
fore, they respectfully ask a recognition by Congress of his  ser-
vices to his country and mankind.

JOHN C. WARREN, M. D., Senior Surgeon Massachusetts Gen-
    eral Hospital, and late President  American Medical Society,
    and Emeritus Professor of  Anatomy of Harvard  University.
GEORGE HAYWARD, M. D., President Massachusetts  Medi-
    cal Society, and Surgeon Massachusetts General Hospital.
S. D. TOWNSEND, M. D., Surgeon Mass. Gen. Hospital.

J. MASON WARREN, M. D.,  "

S. PARK MAN, M. D.
HENRY  J. BIGELOW, M. D., Surgeon Massachusetts  Gene-
    ral Hospital, and Professor of Surgery Harvard  University,

HENRY  S. CLARK,  M. D.,  Surgeon Massachusetts General
   Hospital, and City Physician. 
                            36

JACOB BIGELOW, M. D, Professor Materia Medica Harvard
     University, and President of tlie American Academy of Arts
    and Sciences, and Physician to Massachusetts General Hos-
    pital.
OLIVER W. HOLMES,  M. D., Professor of Anatomy, Harvard
     University.
HENRY I. BOWDITCH, M. D., Physician to Mass. Gen. Hospital
D. HUMPHREYS STORER, M. D.,   "
M.  S. PERRY, M. D.,


GEORGE ACC|hTtTUCK,'m. D.,]^/?™^  ^IfTJ^Il
JOHN JEFFRIES, M. D.,        f  s»rS™»? Mass-  General
EDWARD REYNOLDS, M.  D., J   nosPltal-

WALTER CHANNING,  M. D., Professor  of Midwifery Har-
    vard University.
JOHN WARE, M. D., Professor Theory and Practice Harvard
    University.
JOHN HOMANS, M. D.,  President Suffolk District  Medical
    Society.
WM. J. DALE,  M.  D., one of the Trustees Massachusetts Gene-
    ral Hospital.

JOHN L.  FOX,  M.  D., Surgeon Naval Hospital, Chelsea.
WM. INGALLS, Physician and Surgeon, U. S. Marine Hospital,
    Chelsea, Mass.

S. L. ABBOTT,  M. D., Admitting Physician Massachusetts Gen-
    eral Hospital.

HENRY W. WILLIAMS, M.  D.,  Secretary Suffolk  District
    Medical Society.

M.  H. CHIELDS, President Birkliead Medical College.
R. W. HOOPER,            ) ,.    .        _,   .  77  „
GEORGE  A. BETHUNE,    iMassachi.setts  Charitable  Eye
EDWARD REYNOLDS,     )   and Ear M^mary.
Members of Massachusetts Medical Society.
Z. B. Adams, M. D.
John C. Hayden, M. D.
Ephraim Burke, M. D.
George Bartlett, M. D.
Jonas H. Lane, M. D.
Augustus A. Gould, i\l. D.
Charles Gordon, M. D.
Silas Durkee, M. D.
Geo. Stevens Jones, M. D.
Jesse Chicherong, M. D. 
37
Anson Hooker, M. D.
Henry Dyer, M. D.
T. Randolph Lincoln, M. D.
George Dirby, M. D.
Wavour J. Whitney, M. D.
Francis Chenet, M. D.
Joseph L. Jones, M. D.
Samuel Kneeland, sr., M. D.
T. Fletcher Oakes, M. D.
Geo. Hubbard, M. D.
Chas. W. Mure, M. D.
Richard H. Salter, M. D.
Fytche Edward Olwein, M. D.
Wm. Ed. Coale, M. D.
James W. Stone, M. D.
B. W. Newell, M. D.
Francis A. Willard, M. D.
Wm. Hawes, M. D.
Charles Mifflin, M. D.
J. Wippasne, M. D.
Abm. A. Watson, M. D.
Aaron P. Rhardson, M. D.
Henry S. Ward, M. D.
Wm. Bowen Morris, M. D.
James B. Gregerson, M. D.
Wm. W. Morland, M. D.
M. C. Greene, M. D.
Horace Stacy, M. D.
Franklin F. Patch, M. D.
John H. Oix, M. D.
James Ayer, M. D.
Jos. J. Fales, M. D.
P. Wibrand, M. D.
Ezra Bartlett,-M. D.
S. F. Parcher, M. D.
James Hyndman, M. D.
Henry S. Lee, M. D.
E. D. Cleaveland, M. D.
John Stevens, M. D.
Ira W. Tobie, M. D.
J. Everette Herrick, M. D.
N. C. Stevens, M. D.
Enoch C. Rolfe, M. D.
Henry Willard, M. D.
A. Alexander, M. D.
D. M. Gowan, M. D.
Saml. Morrill, M. D.
Alex. S. Butler, M. D.
Morris Mattson, M. D.
J. A. Larbet, M. D.
Geo. H. Symane, M. D.
J. C. Sanburn, M. D.
Geo. W. Otis, M. D.
W. Germaine, M. D.
Jas. B. Forsythe, M. D.
D. D. Slade, M.  D.
W. E. Townsend, M. D.
John B. Alley, M. D.
Geo. H. Gay, M. D.
Luther Parks, jr., M. D.
Wm. G. Wheeler, M. D.
F. H  Gray, M. D.
James F. Harlow, M. D.
George Russell,  M. I).
Chas. E. Man, M. D.
E. W. Blake, M. D.
Edw. H. Clarke, M. D.
Samuel Gregg, M. D.
E. D. Miller, M. D.   •
C. G.  Putnam, M. D.
Chas. A. Phelps, M. D.
John Odin, jr., M. D.
Joseph Reyndlees, M. D.
Geo. Hayward, jr., M. D.
Henry Osgood Stine, M. D.
G. Newton Thomson, M. D.
J. M.  Phipps, M. D.
Abner Phelps, M. D.
Josiah Curtis, M. D.
E. D. G. Palmer, M. D.
Danl. V. Folts, M. D.
R. L.  Hinckley, M. D.
J. W. Hinckley, M. D.
M. B. Souard,'M.D.
P. E.  Molloy, M. D.
Henry Bryant, M. D.
Chas. E. Buckingham, M. D.
J. W. Warren, jr., M. D.
D. D. Smith, M.  D.
George Power, M. D.
William Read, M. D.
J. F. W. Lane, M. D.
Constantine O'Donnell, M. D.
John S. H. Fogg, M. D.
Edmund T.  Eastman,  M. D.
Jas. M. Smith, M. D.
Edwin Segan, M. D.
N. Adams, M. D. 
38
Benj. B. Appleton, M/D.
David Thair, M. D.
A. A. Kettridgue, M. D.
J. A. Smyth, M. D.
A. J. Cumming, M. D.
A. J. Bellows, M. D.
Thos. Stearns, M. D.
A. C. Webber, M. D.
W. W. Wilmington, M. D.
Chas. F. Foster,  M. D.
A. L. Pierson, M. D.
William Black, M. D.
Geo. Choate, M. D.
W. M.  E. Prince, M. D.
J. G. Wood, M. D.
James Stome, jr., M. D.
E. Cross, M. D.
A. S Adams, M. D.
J. T. Galloupe, M. D.
Danl. Perlery, M. D.
D. A. Johnson, M. D.
E. Porter Eastman, M. D.
Henry  Clark, M. D.
Saml. Flagg, M. D.
Geo. A. Bates, M. D.
Ch. W. Whitcomb, M. D.
Joseph Sargent, M. D.
Ormal  Martin, M. D.
Wm. Workman, M. D.
John E. Hathaway, M. D.
A. S. W. Clean, M. D.
C. C. Chaffer, M. D.
M. A. Hamilton, M. D.
David  Wills, M. D.
Danl. Hall, M. D.
Danl. Howe, M. D.
Geo. W. Sandburn, M. D.
Jas. Howath, M. D.
J. H. Morse, M.D.
Henry Yiall, M. D.
N. S. Barnes, M. D.
O. S. Root, M. D.
Frank. A. Cady, M. D.
O. E- Brewster, M. D.
Nath'l Foote, M. D.
 Avery Williams, M. D.
 L. S. Mavhew, M. D.
Wm. A. Gordon, M. D.
Elijah Colby, M. D.
Johnson Clark, M. D.
John H. Jennings, M. D.
Alex. Poole, M. D.
John Taomy, M. D.
E. E. Brans, M. D.
Benj. Seabury, M. D.
Chas. H. Allen, M. D.
J. P. Alden, M. D.
H. L. Chase, M. D.
E. B. Pierson, M. D.
Geo. S. Choate, M. D.
Geo. A.  Perkins, M. D.
H. W. Wheatland, M. D.
Saml. Johnson, M. D.
Edmund A. Holyoke, M. D.
Seth Gale, M. D.
James M. Noyes, M. D.
John Renton, M. D.
Nathaniel Ruggles, M. D.
Chas. M. Weaks, M.D.
Edward Newland, M. D.
Rufus Woodward, M. D.
Henry Sargent, M. D.
A. S. Gaurlet, M. D.
V. B. Megnault, M. D.
Benj. Haywood, M. D.
Chas. A. Savory, M. D.
P. G. Kittridge, M.D.
C. A. Davis, M. D.
J. W. Scribner, M. D.
W. D. Lamb, M. D.
David Dana, M. D.
Wm. H. Kimball, M. D.
D. C. Perkins, M. D.
A. N. Allen, M. D.
L. F. Humeston, M. D.
Willard Clough,  M. D.
Clark F. Hall, M. D.
N. J. Wilson, M. D.
Alfred Bayles, M. D.
W. B.  Hubbard, M. D.
Horace Bowen, M. D.
E  Daevis, M. D.
Wm. Dickerson, M. D.
Dan. King, M. D.
Geo. Leonard, M. D.
 James  M. Hartley, M. D.
C.  Dennelley, M.*D.
Faster  Hooper, M. D. 
39
L. D. Stickney, M. D.
John H. Mackie, M. D.
Paul Spooner, M. D.
John O. Green, M. D.
Henry Whiting, M. D.  .
J. P. Jewett, M. D.
J. D. Pillsbury, M. D.
Benj. Skelton, M. D.
Elisha  Huntinton, M. D.
John W. Graves, M.  D.
Chas. A. Savory, M.  D.
Joel Spalding, M. D.
David Wells, M. D.
Charles A. Davis, M. D.
Ployer G. Kittredge,  M. D.
Daniel Holt, M. D.
Daniel Moore, M. D.
J. W. Scribner, M. D.
Geo. W. Santom, M. D.
Wm. D. Lamb, M. D.
David  Dana, M. D.
J. H. Morse, M. D.
James Howarth, M.  D.
W. H. Kimball, M. D.
Thos. R. Boutelle, M. D.
Levi Pillsbury, M. D.
T. W. Wadsworth, M.  D.
W. M. Barrett, M. D.
Henry M. Linrab,
James L. Hunt, M. D.
Winslow Warren, M. D.
Benjamin Hubbard, M. D.
Timothy Gordon, M. D.
Jeremy Stimson, M. D.
D.P.Wight, M.D.
E. J. Learned, M. D.
Elisha Huntington, M. D.
John W. Graves, M. D.
Joel Spalding, M. D.
H. Pillsbury, M. D.
P. P. Campbell, M. D.
L. B. Morse, M. D.
Ezra Stephenson, M. D.
H. F. Spear, M. D.
Robert T. P. Fiske, M. D.
Ebenezer Woodward, M. D.
William G. Pattee, M. D.
W. Goddard, M. D.
Andrew Nichols, M. D.
Joseph Osgood, M. D.
David A. Grosvenor, M. D.
George Osgood, M. D.
James C. Briggs, M. D.
Chandler Flagg, M. D.
Daniel Gill, M. D.
W. C. Boyden, M. D.
Charles Haddock, M. D.
Ingalls Kithredge, M. D.
Isaac P. Smith, M. D.
C. H. Hildreth, M. D.
Geo. W. Smith, M. D.
Benjamin Haskell, M. D.
Lemuel Gott, M. D.
Oscar D. Abbott, M. D.
Henry Bigelow, M. D.
Cyrus K. Bartlet, M. D.
Simon Whitney, M. D.
Allston W. Whitney, M. D.
Francis Leland, M. D.
Theodore 0. Cornish, M. D. 
PETITION
TRUSTEES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL
To the Honorable the Senate
        and House of Representatives in Congress assembled:
  The subscribers respectfully represent that they are rnembers
of the Board of Trustees of the Massachusetts General Hospital;
that  the power of the inhalation of sulphuric  ether to produce
insensibility to pain during surgical operations, was discovered by
experiments instituted in this hospital  by Dr. William T. G. Mor-
ton, and that in their  opinion he is entitled to a liberal national
reward for the service thus rendered to'the country  and to man-
kind.
      N. I. Bowditch,            Wm. J. Dale,
      John P.  Bigelow,           Ed. Wiggles-worth,
      W. S. Bullard,             Charles H.  Mills,
      Francis C. Lowell,         J.  Thos. Stevenson,
      Thomas Lamb,            G. A. Shaw.
      Amos A. Lawrence,
  Boston, November 22,1852.
"^