\
V^o; 
*-, 
A
Ua-tLfr-i^,
S3,3+
6
REPLY TO CERTAIN
CALUMNIOUS STATEMENTS
UTTERED AND PUBLISHED
BY FRANCIS S. BEATTIE, M. D.

.rv
rhilaA-el^hia:
B. WRIGHT, PRINTER, BACK Of 112 WAITHUT-STIIKET.
1806. 
* » \ vi *s *y*

iA 
A REPLY.
                   Philadelphia, Nov. 14th, 1826.
   Dr. Francis Beattie having in a pamphlet just issued
by him, published certain letters of mine to Mr. Web-
ster, and an extract of a letter from me to Dr. Ducachet,
with  the  malicious  intention of  inflicting a wound on
my character, I deem it proper to make  the following
statement of facts, in  proof of my being guiltless of the
calumnious charge which the said Dr. Beattie  and his
coadjutor Mr. Webster have thrown out against me.
   Some  time  in  July, 1821,  Mr. Pattison and  Dr.
Revere, of  Baltimore,  who with  Dr. Ducachet  and
myself, conducted  the  Medical  Recorder,  withdrew
from  the editorship of this work.   Mr. Webster,  who
was then at Baltimore, wrote to me on this subject and
requested  my  opinion concerning the future  editorial
arrangements of the  journal.   I  replied to  him,  by a
letter dated July 31, 1821, and among  other things
stated that " I would rather have the sole editorship of
the work;" that I  thought Dr. Ducachet  " wanting in
judgment;"* but that I  did not  know  how to get rid
of him."#On the same day that I wrote thus to Mr.
Webster, I received the following letter from Dr. Du-
cachet:

                        Miv  York, July 28, 1821.
Dear Sir,
   To my great surprise I have  just learnt  from  Mr.
Webster, that Mr. Pattison and Dr. Revere have with-
drawn from the editorship of the Recorder. I have long
suspected that Dr. R. was not altogether  satisfied  with
the existing arrangements; and I was therefore not much

  * I alluded here to the Dr's. Review of " Faithorn's Treatise
on the Liver."  He speaks of it as a work of much merit, when
in truth it is a most contemptible performance. 
4
astonished at his resignation.   But  I  had no idea  that
Mr. Pattison would have joined him in the secession, as
he spoke to me very encouragingly  of the work, on his
late  visit to New York.  Sorry as we are at the loss of
their assistance, I presume we both feel willing to carry
on the work, and to continue co-editors.   lean answer
for myself,  that lam.  I wish you would immediately
write to me on the subject, and suggest some plan for
conducting  the Journal  in future, or say whether it
shall be understood that we go on as usual.  I presume
that unless very strong  considerations of policy should
dictate  an opposite course, there is no necessity for ad-
ding any more to the editorial co-partnership, fyc. fyc.
                           Yours,
                                  H. Ducachet.

  My opinion being thus solicited by the Dr. in rela-
tion  to our future connexion as editors, and finding that
Mr. Webster was disinclined  to adopt the arrangement
I proposed, I resolved to make no further objections to
Dr. Ducachet, and to unite with him in the editorial man-
agement of the Journal. It was obviously my duty, there-
fore, to return him such an answer as might tend  to  pre-
serve harmony and  good feeling between  us.   My ob-
jections to Dr. D. at that time were not strong, nor
were they in the least personal.  His  conduct'towards me
was  always gentlemanly and friendly.  I  was satisfied
that we should be able to sustain the credit and value
of the Recorder.  In answer, therefore, to the above
letter from the Dr. I  observed: " I  regret that  Revere
and  Pattison have withdrawn from the Recorder.  I am
not afraid,  however, but that  you and I  will be  fullv
able to  carry on  the work with quite as much ability as
it has hitherto been done.  There is no one with whom
I would sooner conduct a journal than yourself; and  I am
perfectly satisfied that we and we alone should edit the
Recorder."
  I  soon found,  however, that his  impetuous  temper
would, if not repressed, lead us into difficulties, injurious 
5
to our reputations as editors, and to the interests of the
work placed under our  management.   Did  I conceal
my opinion and apprehensions on this subject from Dr.
Ducachet?  The following extracts of letters from him
will show that I did not  practice such a want of  can-
dour towards him—they show, on the contrary, that I
remonstrated repeatedly against his harsh censures and
intemperate  violence,  and  that, after  the middle of
August,  1821, there was an embarrassing want of har-
mony between us as editors.
   In  a paper which Dr. D. drew up  in August, 1821,
in  relation  to   the New York Banker-street fever,
he introduced  various  remarks  on several  very re-
spectable individuals,  which appeared to me  so  ex-
ceedingly harsh  and  offensive,  that  I  felt  it  my
duty to remonstrate strongly against the publication of
his paper, unless the objectionable parts  were stricken
out.  In testimony  of  this declaration, I offer the  fol-
lowing extract of a letter from Dr. Ducachet to me,
dated  August 28,  1821, and which was  in answer to
one of mine objecting to certain passages in  his paper
on the score of their unreasonably violent and personal
character, and urging him to leave them out.*

Extract of Br. Ducachefs letter, dated Aug. 28, 1821.
   " As for charging the committee," (the committee of
physicians appointed to investigate the character of the
Banker-street fever,)  " of private malevolence, I am
conscientiously convinced  of the truth of the charge,
and it must therefore remain.   As to the hint of Dr.
P's. intemperance,  the language I use is figurative, and
I meant it so.  At  any rate it is the truth, and I do not
wish to have it altered."
   Finding the Dr.  thus fixed  in  his determination to
charge  a respectable  committee of physicians  with

   * Not having kept copies of my letters to Dr. D. I am obliged
to show by his own letters, what the nature of my communica-
tions to him were, in relation to this subject. 
                          6
                            »
 " private malevolence,"  and  to  throw  out a  broad
 insinuation of  intemperance against one of its  mem-
 bers; and believing that such  charges and insinuations
 would reflect discredit on ourselves and on our Journal,
 I again remonstrated against the admission of his paper,
 in  the shape  in  which  he offered it.   I even in-
 formed him, that if  he persisted   in  his  determina-
 tion to publish his paper, without omitting  the ob-
jectionable passages, I would subjoin to it a  note, with
 my signature, declaring my disapprobation  of the per-
 sonalities  with  which  it was so strongly seasoned.  In
 reply to  this  second  remonstrance  and declaration to
 protest publicly against his harsh and offensive remarks,
 I received a letter from him dated September 1,1821,
 in which  he says:  " I still  cannot  conceive the impro-
 priety of  charging the committee with malevolent de-
 signs, nor can I see how it  will injure you  to  let the
 paper remain as it is.   I did it from principle and can-
 not change it.  I must again beg you to leave out your
 note; it will certainly have a bad appearance, as it will
 show a disagreement between the editors."
   The paper was finally published without any material
 alterations; to which I subjoined the following protest.

   " I think it right to state that I  disavow  any parti-
 cipation  in the  personal  allusions  contained  in  the
 foregoing article, furnished by my  co-editor at New
 York."*
                            "JOHN EBERLE."

   Dr. Beattie wishes  to make it appear, that there was
 the most perfect harmony between Dr. D. and myself in
 relation to our editorial transactions, and that my letter
 to Mr. Webster  in November,  1821, was therefore  a
 treacherous attempt to repudiate Dr.  D. at the same
 time that I professed to the Dr. himself my entire sa-
 tisfaction  with his  editorial conduct.   That this  was
 not the case, is evident from the statements  I have al-

        '  Vide, Medical Recorder,  Vol. 5, page 745. 
V                    J    -.......

     ready made; and that frere was a disagreement between
     us, upon editorial  points, is still further manifested by
     the following extract of his letter to me dated October 2,
     1821: " I presume,"  says he, "that you perceive the
     necessity of keeping this disagreement between us per-
     fectly secret."
        From the circumstances which gave rise to  this disa-
     greement,  I became  perfectly  convinced  that Dr. D.
     and myself could  not conduct  the  Recorder, in that
     harmonious manner which I thought  essential  to  its
     success; and I therefore  felt desirous to interrupt our
     editorial connexion".   In  conformity* witR* these senti-
     ments, I wrote to Mr. Websrer/orrthe  lltn, 15th, and .
     22d of Nosjefcber, 1*821*,  and stated explicitly my jyewsys
     on this head, and my reasons for wishing to di|co"nwnue
     my  editorial connexion with  Dr. D.   Tl\ese are thle"~
     letters published by Dr. Beattie.
        The  amount, then,  of  the affair is this:—Mr. Web-
     ster informs me  of the  secession of Drs. Revere and
     Pattison from the  editorship of  the Recorder, and asks
     my  opinion with regard to  its future  management.  I
     answer that I would rather have the sole  editorship, if
     Dr. D. could  be conveniently removed, and give some
     reasons for it.  Dr. D. at the same time asks me by let-
     ter, whether I am willing to conduct the Journal with
      him.  I find Mr.  Webster unwilling to relinquish the
     Dr. I therefore waive my objections:  resolve to go on
      with him; and to  preserve harmony I return him a civil
     affirmative answer.   Some time after  this an editorial
      difference arises between us.  I find that I cannot pro-
     ceed with  him harmoniously.  I protect publicly against
     the personalities of his contributions; and finally appeal
     to Mr. Webster, with an explicit statement of my rea-
     sons for wishing to break off my connexion with Dr. D.
     as editor of the Recorder. This is the deep sin  which the
     delicate moral sense of Dr. F. Beattie  presents to him
     £C as a melancholy picture of depraved  human naftife."
        It gives me pain to be obliged to publish  any thing
     out of my  private correspondence with Dr. D.   But as 
It
   he has  suffered his name to be^fsed, and furnished my
   enemies Vith extracts from my letters, and, as I believe,
   with a  knowledge of the purposes to which  they were
   to be applied, I may plead the necessity of refuting the
   slanders falsely founded on them, in extenuation of my
   bringing forward the name and  the letters of Dr. Du-
   cachet on this occasion.
    s  The  original  letters of Dr. D. are  in the  hands of
   S. Badger, Esq. where they can be seen and  compared o
   with the foregoing extracts by any gentlemen who may be
   curious on tfr| subject.                              g_  -





*"" **¥he exposftion whrch Dr. Beattie  has  published of the  cir-
   cumstances connected  with his dismission from our Faculty, is
   marked throughout with misrepresentation, prevarication and un-
   paralleled malignity.   The trustees, the professors, and the stu-
   dents of our school, have much reason to rejoice in having got rid
   of  him  at  any sacrifice.   No principle of morality or of  good
   policy can  justify the retention of a  man in  a situation—and
   particularly in a situation so responsible as that of a public in-
   structqr,—who is either inefficient through supineness, or  unfit
   from incapacity or ignorance to discharge adequately the duties
   of  his post.
     As to Mr. Webster, this "honest fellow,"!!! as Dr. D.  calls
   him! although it may evince a want of due self-respect to notice
   him particularly, yet as he has falsely asserted, both in Beat-
   tie's pamphlet and elsewhere, that I was removed from the editor-
   ship of the Recorder, I will merely observe that I have his own
   letters as well as copies of mine to show, that I withdrew from
   the work in utter disgust'of Mr. IV.                   J.  E,


"■•»»
* 
c
•