STATEMENT. 
On November 30th, 1884, Drs. E. S. F. Arnold, N. Bozeman, A. Flint, Jr., S. S. Purple, 0. S. Wood, 
and William Young, Fellows of the “New York Academy of Medicine/’ presented, in accordance with the 
By-Laws of the “ Academy,” a certain charge and specifications against Dr. Fordyce Barker, President of 
the “ Academy.” 
The essential point involved in the charge and specifications was that, in accordance with the law of 
1880, entitled “ An act to regulate the licensing of physicians and surgeons,” the accused made and filed an 
affidavit that he received a diploma, granted by the “ Ecole de Medecine,” of Paris, in 1844; and that, in 
point of fact, the accused never received a diploma from the “ Ecole de Medecine,” the said affidavit being 
untrue. 
A certified copy of the affidavit was exhibited to the Committee on Medical Ethics of the “Academy of 
Medicine,” and the fact was not denied that an affidavit had been made as charged. 
The charge and specifications rested entirely on the question of fact of graduation at Paris, at or 
about the year 1844. At the several hearings given to the accusers by the Committee on Medical Ethics, the 
following documents were presented, the authenticity of these documents not being called in question or de - 
nied by any member of the Committee: 
(A. 
Sie: M. Clemenceau, who is prevented at this time by many occupations, has requested me to transmit 
to you the three accompanying papers, which answer the inquiry of your letter of the month of May last. 
As you can judge, the investigations concerning M. Fordyce Barker, and made by M. Ch. Robin, Pro- 
fessor at the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, have given only a negative result. 
The name of M. Barker does not appear upon the registers of the Faculty of Paris. 
Be pleased to receive, sir, the assurance of my most distinguished consideration 
Chamber of Deputies. 
Paeis, December 24, 1883. 
Mr. Flint, 14 West 33d Street, (N. Y.) 
Secretary of M. Clemenceau. 
(Signature.) 
(B.) 
Request to the keeper of the archives to please to communicate to me the following documents: 
The register of Mr. Fordyce Barker, or B. Fordyce Barker, or Benjamin Fordyce Barker. 
Faculty op Medicine of Pakis. 
Secretary of the Faculty. 
(Signature.) 
Paris, June 16, 1883. 
Not in the archives. 
C, Oheyallier. 
The tables of theses from 1840' to 1845, inclusive, have been looked through; all the papers complete 
and incomplete of doctors and even;of officers of health of these six years have been] examined and the name 
asked for has not been found, neithpr Barker, nor Fordyce, nor Benjamin. C. Chevalliee. 
In the letter marked (A) were inclosed the documents (R) and (C). The third inclosure mentioned was 
simply a personal card from Professor Robin to M. Clemenceau, which was shown to the Committee and 
recognized by the Committee as unimportant. 
Translation of a letter (D) from Professor Charles Robin, Member of the Institute (Academy of 
Sciences), Professor of Histology at the Faculty of Medicine of Paris and the Academy of Medicine, and 
Senator of France: 
(C.) 
(D.) 
(Senate.) Paris, February 10, 1884. 
My Dear Flint: I address you with this, the result of the investigations made at our Faculty. We 
find no trace of examinations undergone or of a thesis defended. It could have been obtained by equivalence 
of previous studies, not to undergo an examination, which is, indeed, very rare, but then there should be an 
indication of a defence of a thesis, and this should be in the Collection of Theses under its number of order. There is no trace of this. It would he very astonishing, on the other hand, that M. Barker has not pre- 
served, and is not able to show to his compatriots, a copy of this thesis; for there is no doctorate here with- 
out a thesis, and in the absence of a certificate of defence of the thesis, the putting in evidence before whom 
it was that the brochure in quarto, in which form it is printed and defended, is the only proof that it really 
has been defended. If one cannot present this printed thesis, or at least a certificate of defence, with a 
stamp like that which is added here, or finally the diploma printed on parchment, one is not a doctor of Paris. 
In the case in which a foreign doctor obtains the authorization to practise in Paris, he should be able to 
show the certificate of authorization, and the archives of the school would preserve the mention of this 
authorization, of which there is not a trace. 
Receive, I beg, the expression of my best and devoted remembrances and of my most cordial friendship. 
C. Robin. 
In the letter marked (D) the following was inclosed : 
(E.) 
Faculty of Medicine of Paris, ) 
Paris, February 7, 1884. ) 
It results from the prescribed investigations of the archives and at the library of the Faculty that no 
trace exists of the medical studies that have been made in Paris by Mr. Barker or Fordyce or Beniamin, from 
1840 to 1870. 
[Seal.] 
It is not possible that a foreigner should have received a diploma of doctor of medicine unless his name 
be inscribed in the archives. 
The above are true and accurate translations of the documents presented, the translations being verified, 
as read, by the Chairman of the Committee on Medical Ethics, from the originals. 
Dr. William T. White, who was presented as a witness, testified before the Committee that, in the 
spring of 1884, he had written to the Secretary of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, giving a list of names of 
certain persons registered in the office of the County Clerk in New York City, who claimed to be graduates 
of Paris, and asking a report thereon. He exhibited this report, which was signed by 0. Chevallier, which 
report showed a note opposite the name of Fordyce Barker, indicating that the said Fordyce Barker was not 
■ So- ■gts.'i'M.bwP ■&»¥&. Octb&Wi pgyatrm names had been sentioParis by Dr. White'were acknowl- 
edged as graduates of Paris, and others were indicated as not graduates of Paris. Among those marked as 
not graduates of Paris, was the name of Fordyce Barker. 
The accusers were subjected by the Committee to a thorough examination with regard to the documents 
presented and the maimer in which they came into their possession. 
At no session of the Committee at which the accusers were present, did the accused or any witnesses in 
behalf of the accused appear, although it is understood by the accusers that the accused had been cited to 
appear, and also that the Committee gave to the accused a private hearing. 
At the last session of the Committee at which the accusers were present, a written defense by the ac- 
cused was read, together with letters from Drs. R. 0. Doremus and E. H. Davis. 
The essential point in the written defense was that the accused had received, in 1861, a diploma, granted 
by the “ Ecole de Medecine,77 of the date of 1845, but that this diploma, with a diploma of A. M., Bowdoin 
College, 1837, a diploma of M. D., Bowdoin College, 1841, and a certain Greek diploma, had been lost 
in 1863. 
The material point in the letter from Dr. R. 0. Doremus was, that he had seen, in 1861, a French 
diploma of the date of 1845, granted to the accused, no particular feature of which was recalled, “ except the 
name of Orfila Doyen/7 
The material point in the letter from Dr. E. H. Davis was that he also, hod seen, in 1861, a French 
diploma of the date of 1844 or 1845, granted to the accused. Dr. Davis wrote, “I only remember Orfila as 
one of the signers, because his name was familiar to me, and also that it was signed by the Minister of 
Public Instruction, but I have forgotten his name.7’ 
The Committee peremptorily refused to permit the accusers to criticise the written defense of the accused 
or the letters from Drs. Doremus and Davis, or even to express an opinion thereon; and the accusers had 
no opportunity to present any questions to either the accused or his witnesses. 
It has appeared and does appear to the accusers that they should have been permitted to ask the ac- 
cused, either directly or through the Chairman of the Committee, such pertinent questions as the following: 
1. In the spring of 1884, did you not receive, while in Europe, from a personal and professional friend, 
a copy of certain documents showing that the records in Paris failed to give evidence that you ever received 
a diploma from the “ Ecole de Medicine77 ? 2. Did you make or cause to be made any investigations of the records in Paris, with a view of es- 
tablishing the fact of your graduation, and if so, what was the result of such investigations ? 
In point of fact, such receipt was acknowledged by the accused by cable, in May, 1884. 
3. When you made application for membership in the “ Medical Society of the County of New York,” 
in 1866, did you exhibit to the Comitia Minora your diploma of M. D., Bowdoin College, 1841 ? 
In point of fact, candidates for membership in the “Medical Society of the County of New York” are 
required to exhibit to the Comitia Minora their diplomas of M. D. The minutes of the Society show that 
the accused was admitted to membership, April 2, 1866, on a report of the Comitia Minora, and that such 
admission to membership was granted by reason of a diploma, presumably exhibited to the Comitia Minora, 
from Bowdoin College, dated 1841. The written defense of the accused distinctly specifies this diploma as 
one of the several diplomas lost in 1862. 
The accusers should have had an opportunity of asking of Drs. Doremus and Davis a question of the 
following import: 
Do you distinctly remember that the French diploma which you state that you saw in 1861 was signed 
by Orfila, or by Orfila-Doyen ? 
In point of fact, the Dean of the Faculty does not sign the diplomas granted in Paris, and presumably 
Orfila never signed a Paris diploma of M. D., it not being one of his official functions to sign such docu- 
ments. A genuine Paris diploma, held by Dr. Cosmo Brailly, of New York City, of the date of 1840, 
Orfila being at that date Dean of the Faculty, does not bear his signature. A genuine Paris diploma, held 
by Dr. K. L, Miranda, of New York City, of the date of 1861, does not bear the signature of the Dean of 
the Faculty. It has also been ascertained by the accusers that the form of the Paris diploma of M. D. has 
not been changed since the year 1840, except that diplomas have been issued in the names, respectively, of 
the different forms of government that have been established in France since that date. 
The Committee on Medical Ethics presented their report to the “Academy,” at a stated meeting held 
December 18, 1884, this report concluding as follows: 
“ It is the unanimous decision- of the Committee that the witnesses must be believed as against the neg- 
ative inference from the records, and that the charge and specifications are not sustained.” 
The accusers have felt and do feel aggrieved at the proceedings of the “Academy” following the recep- 
tion of the report, and the subsequent comments of the Medical press. In the “ Academy,” propositions 
to expel or to censure the accusers were made, although they had acted in accordance with their priv- 
ileged rights, from a sense of duty to the profession and to the “Academy,” and with proper motives, being 
unwilling to privately communicate charges that they were not ready to present publicly in a formal man- 
ner before a proper professional tribunal. 
The accusers have felt and do feel aggrieved at the report of the Committee on Medical Ethics. In 
their opinion, this Committee, in view of the documents presented to them, should at least have recom- 
mended that the “ Academy,” in case the charge made against its President did not seem to be proven, 
should ask for a special report, from proper officials in Paris, upon the question of graduation of the ac- 
cused, which would undoubtedly have settled the matter, either hy a complete vindication of the accused or 
otherwise. 
The accusers are of the opinion that the question of graduation at Paris was settled in the negative: 
Ist. By an official reply to an official request from the Secretary of Faculty of Medicine for a search of 
the archives, this reply showing that there was no record in the archives, of such graduation. 
2d. By a statement on the part of Professor Ch. Eobin, of the “ Faculty of Medicine,” that a grad- 
uation could not have occurred without a record of the same, which was accompanied with the result of a 
second official search, showing an absence of any record of such graduation or of any medical studies made 
by the accused. 
3d. By an official statement, in reply to an inquiry by Dr. William T. White, Editor of the “ Medical 
Register,” that the accused was not a graduate of Paris. 
In view of the evident indisposition of the “ Academy of Medicine ” to seek positive information by an 
independent official inquiry, the accusers determined to ask for another search of the records of the Faculty 
of Paris. 
It seemed easy to solve the question involved, by means of a simple request to the Dean of the Faculty, 
and this appeared to be the only proper method to adopt. Paris diplomas are issued by tbe Minister of Public Instruction of France, in the name of the govern- 
ment and on the recommendation of the “Faculty of Medicine.” The records of the “Faculty” consti- 
tute a part of the official records or archives of France. 
A diploma being merely an official certificate of a recorded graduation, the actual record being the only 
true and incontestable evidence of such graduation, and a diploma being liable to be lost, destroyed, multil- 
ated, altered, or imitated, it is universally admitted that the inscriptions in a public and official record must 
supercede all other evidences. The alleged diploma not being produced, and the recollections of the two 
persons who testified that they had seen the alleged document twenty-three years ago, being so imperfect 
that they remembered the signature of Orfila-Doyen, who did not sign diplomas of Paris, the accusers requested 
Messrs. B. Westermann & Co., of New York City, to obtain, through their correspondents in Paris, an official 
statement from the Dean of the “ Faculty of Medicine of Paris,” with regard to the question of graduation 
of the accused. In accordance with this request, Messrs. Westermann & Co. wrote, December 19, 1884, to 
Mr. C. Reinwald, of Paris, asking him to obtain the desired information. 
After many delays, due to obstacles which have not yet been explained, extending over a period of more 
than four months, the following document was received. May 23, 1885: 
“Faculte de Medecike de Paris. 
Paris, le 2 Mai, 1885. 
“Monsieur: 
“II resulte de recherches minutieuses faites dans nos archives, que le nomine (Benjamin) Fordyce 
Barker n'a point ete inscrit a la Faculte a quelque titre que ce soit. 
“ Veuillez agreer. Monsieur, Fassurance de ma consideration distinguee. 
“ Le Doyent, 
“J. Beclakd, 
“ Monsieur Reinwald, 15 rue des Sts-Peres.” 
(Translation.) 
Faculty oe Medicine of Paris. 
Paris, May 2, 1885. 
Sir: 
It results from minute researches made of our archives, that the named (Benjamin) Fordyce Barker has 
not been inscribed at the Faculty in any title whatsoever. 
Be pleased to receive, Sir, the assurance of my distinguished consideration. 
J. Beclard, Dean. 
Mr. Reinwald, 15 Rue des Sts-Peres. 
The archives of the “ Faculty of Medicine of Paris ” failing to show, after repeated and thorough 
searches by the proper officials, any record of graduation of the accused, the charge and specifications are 
of necessity true. Had the searches of the archives revealed a record of the alleged graduation, the charge 
and specifications would of necessity have been disproven. 
Should the “ Academy of Medicine” fail to find, in the documents presented to its Committee on Medical 
Ethics—confirmed by the official communication from the Dean of the “ Faculty of Medicine of Paris,” of 
the date of May 2, 1885—a sufficiently positive basis for rendering exact justice equally to the accused and 
to the accusers, official inquiries made independently by the “ Academy” would doubtless elicit replies of the 
same import as of those received in answer to the inquiries that have already been made. 
Should the charge and specifications presented to the “Academy” ever become a subject of legal in- 
vestigation, the courts could readily have the documents from Paris verified in accordance with the forms 
and provisions of law. 
It is proper to say that the above statement has been made without malice or a desire to injure the ac- 
cused or to subject him to discipline for the offences charged. The action of the Committee on Medical 
Ethics and the subsequent intemperate proceedings in the “Academy” have rendered it necessary for the 
accusers themselves, in their own vindication, to establish, beyond any question, the exact truth in the 
matter of their charge. Had this charge not been sustained after thorough inquiry, the accusers wrould 
have been willing and ready to make all possible public and private reparation; but the charge and specifica- 
tions were made with an honest conviction that they were true, and the results of the most patient, thorough 
and careful investigations on their part have not changed that belief. 
New York City, May 25, 1885.