HAMMOND-SAYRt CONTROVERSY Washington, D. C., August 19, 1889. To Dr. Lewis A. Sayre : A few days since you asserted to a newspaper reporter that I am making $1,000 a week out of the so-called Dr. Brown-Sequard “Elixir of Life.” You did this without the least evidence in sup- port of the statement, and with that moral recklessness which is so prominent a feature of your character. It originated entirely in your own debased and dishonorable mind. You knew how you would act under similar circumstances, and you affected to believe that I would be equally as low as you are. You knew at the time that you were uttering a wilful, malignant, and deliberate lie. I have not made, nor do I expect to make, directly or indirectly, as much as one cent from the so-called “ Elixir.” You undertook to denounce the experiments I am making as though you knew something about them. Every physician acquainted with your scientific status is aware that your knowledge of physi- ology and pathology is small enough to disgrace an embryo medical student, and that you are utterly incapable of giving an intelligent opinion upon any subject requiring grave thought and de- liberation. You are also pleased to express your opinion of me in such ungentlemanly and unprofessional language that were it worth the while I should bring you to the bar of a court of justice or inflict such personal chastisement upon you as your malignancy and falsehood so well deserve. It is thor- oughly known, however, that abuse from you is no slander. The filthiness of your speech, even in ordinary conversation, is such that ladies, to my knowledge, have left your presence in disgust, and have refused to hold further professional communication with you, while your habitual brutality of manner and cruelty have become by-words with the profession and the public of New York. As to horse-whipping you, I am afraid that not even that satisfaction is left to me. You are so broken down mentally and physically by your vicious course of life that the public, whose good opinion I believe I possess, might regard me as taking an undue advantage of your infirmities. I a “ fraud,” pronounced so by Lewis A. Sayre, whose name is a synonym for all that is false and unprofessional! How often have you ■stolen patients from other physicians? So frequently, that consultations with you are dangerous, for it is well known that you will endeavor so to ingratiate your- self with the patient by your pretensions and vauntings that the family physician is cast into the shade and the case goes into your hands—that is, it used to go into your hands when your brother physicians called }’ou in consultation. They have learned to avoid you as an hones: man avoids a thief. A “ fraud ! ” Do you remember some of the many fraudulent and unnecessary operations you have performed upon helpless children for manifestly incurable diseases, and for which you received grossly exorbitant fees ? Have you forgotten poor little Harry Norman, whom you cruelly mutilated and then had the unblushing impudence to report the case as cured, when your operation, as I showed to the American Neurological Association from the testimony of the father and the exhibition of the patient, had not only been useless, but had aggravated the disease from which the child suffered ? Can you not bring to your mind, in some of its less obfuscated moments, if such there be, the case of the son of the Brooklyn clergyman, whom you cut with your knife when the little fellow was suffering from an organic disease of the spinal cord absolutely incurable ? Have you for- gotten the suit for malpractice which a poor and indignant father brought against you for injuries which, in your ignorance of anatomy and surgery, you inflicted upon his son ? It is true you managed to throw sufficient doubt about the matter as to warrant a jury in acquitting you, but one of the most distinguished surgeons of this or any other country testified that you had opened the hip joint and had made the boy a hopeless cripple for life. Why, your whole life has been one of fraud! Think of the way in which your unfortunate creditors suffered from your bankruptcy when you were forced into court on supplementary proceed- ings, and when you swore that you had no property and no income and that your wife received the proceeds of your practice and allowed you a weekly stipend for your board and clothes. Think of the fact that the books that have appeared under your name were composed by men whom you hired for the purpose, and that you are incapable of writing good English, not only on medical subjects, but on any subject whatever. You say in the interview to which I refer, that you echo the opinion expressed in regard to me by one of your Philadelphia confreres. Immediately on seeing the alleged statement, I wrote to Dr. Mears asking if he had made any such assertion as he was reported to have made. In answer I re- ceived the following letter: “ 1429 Walnut Street, “ Philadelphia, August 6th, 1889. Dear Sir: “ I am just in receipt of your letter of the 2d instant, enclosing a slip cut from the Philadelphia Times, and you ask whether this is authentic or not. It is not authentic. I deem it just to you, as to myself, to state that immediately on my attention being called to the statement referred to, I called on the editor of the Times and requested him to make a proper correction. “ I enclose herewith a slip cut from the Times of the next morning, the 3d instant. “I need not assure you that I greatly regret the publication to which you refer. “ Very respectfully, ‘‘ Your obedient servant, “ I. EWING ME APS. “ Dr. W. A. Hammond, “ Washington, D. C.” The following is the extract from the Philadelphia Times to which Dr. Mears refers : “Injustice was done to both Dr. Mears and to Dr. Hammond by a misconception of Dr. Mears’ statement relative to Dr. Brown-Sequard’s theory of the elixir of life. Dr. Mears was reported as saying that ‘Dr. Hammond, as is known in his profession, is a fraud,’ when what he said was : ‘If Dr. Hammond advocated the Brown-Sequard theory he advocated a scientific fraud.’ “The misconception of Dr. Mears’ statement, as reported, made him appear as offering a direct offense to Dr. Hammond, for whom he cherishes great respect, as does the medical profession, and the correction is made as a matter of justice to both parties.” It is scarcely necessary to say anything more on this point. Dr. Mears is a gentleman ; you are not. You have always been noted for unscrupulousness and malignancy, but as you grow older these traits become more pronounced in you. Doubtless, this fact is in great part due to the circumstance that your practice has almost entirely vanished. Abler and better men, such as Shaffer, Gibney, Rob- erts, Phelps, and others, whom you,have systematically affected to contemn and underrate, have come to the front and have cast you into the background. Your mind is too small to tolerate an honorable rivalry. I told you once, as you will probably recollect, that there was too much glass in your house for you to venture to throw stones, and that if you did not keep a decent tongue in your head, so far as I was concerned, it would be bad for you. I think you will admit that my warning was timely, and that I have fulfilled my promise. WILLIAM A. HAMMOND. “Poor fellow!” was a frequent exclamation with him as he read on. “He has a perfect right to hold anv opinion of me that he wishes, said Dr. Savre at last. ■“His judgment of me does not in the slightest degree affect me, nor do I care what made any such statement as he refers to at the start,” continued Dr. Sayre. ‘ * don * cf£o whether he makes a cent or a million out of he elixir. The nearest I ever came to saying anything like it was that if I "anted to go into this business myself I was satisfied I could make $1,000 a week, or 000 a day for that matter, because there are so many old men who would want to ba made young and would be willing to pay for it. “I did not think it right to go ahead and make ex- *SS‘,SSSf d*e proper NEW YORE “You undertook to denounce the experiments I am making as though you knew something about them. Every physician acquainted with your scientific status is aware that your knowledge of physiology and pathology is small enough to dis- grace an embryo medical student, and that you are utterly incapable of giving an intelligent opinion upon any subject requiring grave thought and de- liberation. “You are also pleased to express your opinion of me in such ungentlemanly and unprofessional lan- guage that were it worth the while I should bring you to the bar of a court of justice or inflict such personal chastisement unon you as your malignancy and falsehood so well deserve. It Is thoroughly known, however, that abuse from you is no slan- der. The filthiness of your speech, even in or- dinary conversation, is such that ladies, to my knowledge, have left your presence in disgust, and have refused to hold further professional communi- cation with you, while your habitual brutality of manner and cruelty have become bywords with the profession and the public of New York. As to horsewhipping you, I am afraid that not even that satisfaction is left to me. You are so broken down mentally aud physically by your vicious course of life that tho public, whose good opinion I believe I possess, might regard me as taking an undue ad- vantage of your infirmities. PAYING HIS RESPECTS. “I a ‘fraud,’ pronounced so by Lewis A. Sayre, whose name is a synonymo for all that is false and unprofessional! How often have you stolen pa- tients from other physicians? So frequently that jonsultations with you are dangerous, for it is well inown that you will endeavor to so ingratiate your- self with the patient by your pretensions and vauntings that the family physician is cast into the shade and the case goes into your hands—that is, it used to go into your bauds when your brother physicians called you in consultation. They have learned to avoid you as an honest man avoids a thief. "A ‘fraud!’ Do you remember some of the many fraudulent and unnecessary operations you have performed upon helpless children for manifestly incurable diseases, and for which you received grossly exorbitant fees? MALPRACTICE CHARGED. “Have you forgotten poor little Harry Norman, whom you cruelly mutilated and then had the un- blushing impudence to report the case as cured, when your operation, as I showed to the American Neurological Association from the testimony of tho father and the exhibition of the patient, had not only been useless, but had aggravated the disease from which the child suffered? “Can you not bring to your mind in some of its less obfuscated moments, if such there be, the case of the son of tho Brooklyn clergyman whom you heartlessly cut with your knife when the little fel- low was suffering from an organic disease of the spinal cord absolutely incurable? Have you for- gotten the suit for malpractice which a poor and in- dignant father brought against you for injuries which, in youi ignorance of anatomy and surgery, you inflicted upon his son? It is true you managed to throw sufficient doubt about the matter as to warrant a jury in acquitting you. but one of the most distinguished surgeons of this or any other country testified that you had opened the hip joint and made the boy a hopeless cripple for life. “Why, your whole life has been one of fraud! Think of tho way in which your unfortunate credit- ors suffered from your bankruptcy, when you were forced into court on supplementary proceedings, and when you swore that you had no property and no incomo and that your wife received the proceeds of your practice and allowed you a Weekly stipend for your board and clothes. “Think of the fact that the books that have ap- peared under your name were composed by men whom you hired for the purpose, and that you are incapable of writing good English, not only on medical subjects, but on any subject whatever. MORE VENOM. “You have always been noted for unscrupulous- ness and malignancy, but as you grow older these traits become more pronounced in you. Doubtless this fact is in great part due to the circumstance that your practice has almost entirely vanished. Abler' and better men, such as Shaffer, Gibney, Roberts, Phelps and others, whom you have sys- tematically affected to contemn and underrate, have come to the front and have cast you into the background. Your mind is too small to tolerate an honorable rivalry. “I told you once, as you will probably recollect, that thero was too much glass in your house for you to venture to throw stones, and that if you did not keep a decent tongue in your head so far as I was concerned it would be bad for you. I think you will admit that my warning was timely, and that I have fulfilled my promise.” DR. SAYRE LAUGHS AT THE SCREED. I found Dr. Sayre yesterday afternoon in his operating room in the Thirtieth street extension of his residence, No. 286 Fifth avenue. He had just been superintending an operation conducted by his son. Dr. Sayre had not seen the diatribe of Dr. Hammond until I showed him a cojiy of it and ho told me he had not even heard of it. He read it aloud and commented upon it passage by passage. The Doctor treated the whole thing in a rather jocu- lar way and did not appear at all disturbed by the attack. , _ YffiDLEBT EFFECTS OF THE ELIXIR. thing to do was to wait until a scientific investiga- tion had been made and a report given on it. Then t was time enough for physicians to try it. They should have had the opinion of some such man as Dr. Loomis, who has just made a report. “But Hammond jumped into the thing at the start and commenced to tell of the wonderful tnings he had done. He wanted to make all the capital out of it he could. DOUBTS HAMMOND’S WORD. “I don’t think he has ever seen in any newspaper a statement representing that [ said any such thing about him. I have received clippings from all over the country regarding my views, but have seen nothing of the sort and do not believe he has either. “I ought to feel grateful to Hammond for letting me alone. If I have injured him or done anything to him why don't he take the law on me and come and give me a licking? 1 don’t need any of his sym- pathy or pity. If he thinks my practice is falling off let him come and attend to it for a few days and he will find that I have all 1 can do. "As for my not being called in consultation, that is all nonsense. I have had two consultations al- ready to-day and am called for two more this after- noun. But such things as this cannot injure mo, and I don’t care what a man like Hammond says anyway. “It was not 1 who called Hammond a fraud. Was he not so pronounced by the United States govern- ment when he was courtmartialled and dismissed from the army? It is not necessary for me or any- body else to say anything about him, for he is well enough known. "But he has made somo positive misstatements and he ought to know it. I never saw such a man as Hammond. Do I know Harry Norman? Well, I should say I did. His father lived over in Green- point aud brought the boy over to see me. I told him what ought to be done, and ho went home and got a druggist or somebody else to do what I had advised. He made a had business of it. didn’t get a fair show. “Afterward I performed an operation on the boy, but before the wounds healed Hammond took him down before the Neurological Society. He did not exhibit the case properly there, as I can prove. I have letters in my possession from Mr. Norman thanking me for what I had done and saying it was all right. "I am glad Hammond has brought up that mal- practice case, for I have the documentary evidence to prove that I was in the right and was imposed upon, and in fighting the case was congratulated by some of the most eminent men in tho profession and thanked for doing a great service to the pro- fession. At the request of the late Dr. S. W. Gross, of Philadelphia, and the late Dr. Dixie Crosby I had published a history of the case, with all the evi- dence, court proceedings and other matters per- taining to it. Their letters, which were highly complimentary, appear in the volume, which was circulated extensively. "The facts are briefly these:—While examining a patient in my private office on April 2, 1868, my as- sistant brought in a poor woman with a girl—not a boy as Hammond says—about seven years old. Dr. Gross aud Dr. Neftel, of this city, happened to be there, and saw the case and the operation. The child had an immense abscess on the outside of the hip. The joint was not opened, but I opened the abscess and took out a pint of pus, “What I did was indorsed by those present, among whom, I think, was also Dr. Sims. I never received a cent for the operation and did not see the child afterward. Her father, John F. Walsh, was induced to bring a suit against me for $20,000 damages by one Edwin James, Queen’s Counsel, who had been turned out of England. “They afterward wanted to settle for $260, and I could have got out of tho case for that any time. But I did not propose to stand that sort of busi- ness, and after repeated efforts finally got the case to trial. I petitioned for a personal inspection of the child to find out what injury, if any, had been inflicted. That was resisted, but I persisted and Judge Jones rendered an opinion sustaining me. BENEFIT TO THE PROFESSION. “This point was of incalculable benefit to the med- ical profession and gave great protection against injustice to its members. I felt compensated by this for the personal annoyance and expense to which I had been put. Drs. William H. Van Buren, Frank H. Hamilton and Ernest Iirackowizer were the surgical experts appointed by the Court who made the examination of the child. Their report showed that the claim made against me was un- founded, and tUe» Washington, August 25,1889. ) Dr. Hammond uttered an exclamation of con- tempt when I called his attention this afternoon to the criticisms of Dr. Lewis A, Sayre in to-day’s Herald. “Tho most that Dr. Sayre says,” he remarked, “is simply abuse, to which it is impossible to reply without uttering other abuse, which I do not care to do. Tho only charge that he makes is in regard to an opera- tion which he alleges I pretended to perform upon a gentleman from tho South. The operation iras performed and consisted in removing a pieco »f decayed bone from the ear; a part of that bone is now in my possession. The gentleman had paralysis of the face and the paralysis disappeared after the removal of the bone. “He was Insane at the time he camo under my charge. He afterward died in a lunatic asylum, and no post-mortem examination of him was ever made. I never claimed that I had written to the man’s nhysician that I practised a deception upon the patient. ONCE MORE THE LIE DIBECT. “That is all one of Dr. Sayre’s falsehoods, for I practised no deception, neither did I charge him $1,000, nor $1,600, nor anything like either of these •ums. No such man as Dr. Sayre describes was *ver operated upon by me. The gentleman that I operated on was a friend of Mr. Kichard T. Wilson, and came to me through Mr. Wilson. “As to the case of little Harry Norman, I cannot do better than call attention to an extract from my book on 'Diseases of the Nervous System, where, on page 379 of the seventh edition, you will find a statement of the case, with a woodcut of the boy. The statement is made there that a delicate and un- usual operation was performed on the boy by unt- geon That surgeon was Dr. Sayre, and it is not the only case in which he has performed that operation "Dr. Sayre says thathis operation upon the young girl was of ‘Incalculable benefit to the medical pro- fession.’ If the medical profession can only be benefited by laying open the hip joints of young children, the sooner the medical profession is not benefited the better. Every one knows that Sayre’s practice is falling off and has fallen off. "He says he never made any such remark as that I was a fraud and was making $1,(XXJ a week. He did make it, and you will find it published in the San Francisco Examiner of August 5, as follows: Falsity, Unprofessional Conduct and Noto- riety Grabbing Said To Be a Few of His Traits. “THE WORST SUBJECT I EVER TOUCHED.” Some Particulars Pointed Out to Show that Dr. Hammond Purposely Distorted Dr. Sayre’s Cases. Not ainco the days of tho late Pronident Garfield’* lllnesB, when questions of modical ethics and methods so agitated the profession, has there been anything like tho sensation that was caused by the violent attack made by Dr. William A. Hammond on Dr. Lewis A. Sayre. The interest is not confined to medical circles, for tho public generally is concerned on account of the world wido reputation of the two men. Ths Herald was relied upon for all information con* cerning this extraordinary affair, because it had first and exclusively given the story of tho attack and the recoil. "I feel half ashamed of myself for having taken any notice of Hammond’s abuse of me,” said Dr. Sayre yesterday. “Nobody can'afford to take any notice of a man of that stamp. Tho trouble with him is that he is losing his business, as he has al- ready lost his self-respect. He is one of those men who must havo notoriety and can’t have honorable reputations.” , ' nr FOB THE SB WEB ONLY. ► Then tho Doctor added in a true apologetic tone “I regret, though, that I should have contributed in any way toward Hammond’s making himself any more notorious. I was simply astounded when the Herald called my attention to his circular. As I said then, it was tho first I knew about the existence of the circular. No douht I was a little cTafSEFat tho man’s cheek, and expressed my mind-without stopping to think how unwise it was to mix myself up in such a moss. "Shortly after your call I received a typewritten copy with Hammond’s signature attached. If I had seen it before I should have dismissed tho wholj matter by disposing of it in tho sewer, where it properly belonged and to which I consigned my copy. “No, there is nothing I desire to take back or amend. Hammond has deliberately maligned me and Hed about mo. What 1 especially objoct to is his reference publicly to the cases of private per- sons. It is a breach of medical honor. THE NORMAN CASE. “I sco from the Herald that ho is still harping on the case of Harry Norman. He has so distorted the facts that 1 can soe no objection in exclaining the circumstances. It was clearly a clinical case. The boy had been handed around at different clinics before he came to me. The father of the child had taken him to Hammond and he had tolegraphcd to Dr. Weir Mitchell to come over from Philadelphia and make an examination with him. They had the hoy at Hammond’s house one Sunday and decided they could do nothing for him. It was thought best to have a photograph of the boy taken and sent to confreres in Europe in order to get opinions as to what wps best to bo done. It was a curious case of nervousness. “Photographer O’Neill remarked when ho saw tho boy that tnat was just the sort of case that Dr. Sayre treated, for he had takeu a number of pic- tures of such sufferers. The boy's parents brought him to me and I carried him over to my clinic at Bellevue Hospital and lectured on him. I told the father if he would bring the child to me at the hos- pital on the following Wednesday, which was oper- ating day, I would do what I could to relieve him. But air. Norman wrote me thnt he could not do so,, because ho was called to Philadelphia. It seems that his wife had been interested in one of my pamphlets treating of such cases, and could no* wait for me. She got someone elec to operate, on the boy. There was a bad mess or it, and the child was suffering when Anally I consented to perform the operation. "That was early in the summer. In October, I think, at a mooting of the Academy of Modicine 1 referred to the treatment of such cases, when Ham- mond surprised me by saying that the method had been shown to be wrong in the case of tho Norman boy. He told about hio being exhibited before the American Neurological Society and reported tha( tho boy had been greatly injured. That was the first I had heard of It. “Dr. Carpenter, the stenographer who reported the proceedings before tho Neurological Society, informed me that he had been present at the meet- ing where Hammond brought tho boy and said that a fair chance had not been given for examination. I wroto to the boy’s father for information, and you can see for yourself how Hammond has twisted the facts." WHAT THE FATHER SAID. Dr. Sayre handed me a letter out of a number re- lating to the case which he has preserved. It is signed by A. J. Norman, tho hoy’s father, and this is the most important part of it:— “I feel as though I was showing ingratitude in not seeing you in person and bringing tho boy. I shall try to do so next Sunday. 1 am pleased, in reply to yours of tho 23d, to inform you that our boy is in a splendid condition mentally and physi- cally and is gaining in intelligence and strength so rapidly that he has caught up to the average, and if he continues to improve as rapidly will vory soon surpass the most forward children of his ago.” "in answer to your questions:—First, the date of the meeting of the society was about the middle of the first week in June; second, his clothing was not removed and no examination was made; third the parts were not fairly healed. "\ou see how Hammond persists in misrepresent- ing me,” commented Dr. Sayre. “That is simply because he did not agree with my theory, which has been widely adopted and commented upon. I could refer you to numerous instances where 1 have received compliments of tho highest order for my work in this line.” DK. SAYRE'S FIGHT IN THE COURTS. I called Dr. Sayre’s attention to the following statement made by Dr. Hammond to a representa- tive of the Herald in Washington :— “Dr. Sayre says that his operation upon the young girl was of 'incalculable benefit to the medical pro- fession.' If the medical profession can only b6 benefited by laying open the hip joints of young children the sooner the medical profession is nol benefited the better.” “Weli,” remarked Dr. Sayre, "that Is only another exhibition of the way he distorts things. The operation itself was not referred to as of ‘incal- culable benefit’ to the profession, but my action was.” The Doctor called my attention to a series of resolutions adopted by the State Medical Society in reference to the case mentioned. Among othei things it recites that, "by vigorously forcing thie scandalous suit to a trial he securod a judicial de- cision which established a legal principle of great valuo to the whole medical profession, and which has been justly characterized as one of tho greatest advances in'jurisprudence during half a century, and will do much to prevent malicious attacks upon medical men.” Thanks were tendered to "Dr. Sayre, whose successful efforts to protect liis honor and interests merit a distinct recognition.” Sayre jocosely suggested that the attack made on him by Dr. Hammond may be explained on tho theory that the Browr-Sequard elixir inay have gone to the brain of his antagonist. If what Dr. Hammond says is true Dr. Sayre is not only unfit to practise medi- cine but is out of place among gentlemen. On the other hand, If Dr. Hammond has spoken falsely he ought to be ostracised by decent men and women. Herald Bureau, ) Corner Fifteenth and G Streets, N. W.,} Washington, August 27, 1889. ) Or. Hammortd Wants Dr. Sayre to Sue Him for Libel. [J DE. HAMMOND OFFERS TO STAND A SHIT FOR LIBEL BY DB. SAYRE. Dr. Hammond made a vigorous reply to-night to the last attack made upon him by Dr. Sayre. "Yes,” said the Doctor, “I read it, and the only statement I desire to make in reply is in regard to the case of little Harry Norman, about which Dr. Sayre is so interested. This little boy about four years old was brought to my clinic at the Univer- sity Medical College in January, 1876. He was ap- parently in good health, was well grown for his age and had not been subject to any exhausting disease. '•As he sat upon a chair he exhibited no indica- tion of paralysis, spasm or inco-ordinatlon. He moved both legs well and with normal force and could use either hand in the ordinary way. But it was im- possible for him to assume the erect posture, and when he attempted to do so he stood in a peculiar one sided stooping position, the left arm strongly flexed against the side of the chest, whilo the right was thrown out behind him. He could not main- tain himself on his feet without support. “in walking he was able to direct his steps with a certain amount of precision, but yet not to a normal extent. He appeared also to have difficulty in arrest- ing his movements, and was accordingly apt to come up violently against obstacles which were in his way. His gait was between a run and a walk, and he often fell. In bringing the case before the class I expressed the provisional opinion that it was one of chorea paralytica, but further examination and the inefficacy of all treatment soon caused me to change this view. DR. SAYItE'S OPERATION. “In May he came under the charge of a ‘surgeon,’ Dr. Sayre, who circumcised him under the impres- sion that the case was one of reflex inco-ordination. It is scarcely necessary to say that the operation was unsuccessful. When he appeared before the association in June there had been a gradual ad- vance in the intensity of his symptons. Yet, not- withstanding the marked inco-ordination, there was no paralysis, no derangement of sensibility, no bladder disturbance, no spasm, no deviation of electric excitability of the muscle and none of the peculiar symptons indicative of schrosis of any part of the cord. After this there was a short inter- mission in his symptons, and his father thought he was recovering. He writes me to that effect September 7, no medicine having been taken. “But soon afterward he again relapsed, and his condition gradually became worse. When I last saw him, about a year ago, there were nystagmus and a total inability to stand. When he tried to do so he bent over so his head touched the floor, and there he remained, apparently endeavoring to stand on his head. When he wanted to go anywhere in the room he lay down on the floor and rolled toward it, turning over toward th@ left always. About this time Dr. P. Jewell, of Chicago, saw the patient. Continued examination and study of this very interesting case led mo to the opinion that it is one of schrosis and atrophy of the cer- ebellum. The father of the boy wrote me a year after the operation was performed and said he was in a worse condition than over. HE WANTS TO BE SUED. “The editorial in to-day’s Herald pleased me very much. I will accept its conditions absolutely. If what I said in my letter to Sayre is not true I am willing to be ostracised by all decent men and all decent women. If it is true then I want Dr. Sayre to cease practising medicine and go out of decent society. I stand ready to make good every asser- tion contained in my letter, which the Herald printed on Sunday. If Dr. Sayre will bring a suit against me for libel I will go to New York and accept service, and have the trial take place there and not here. I shall bo delighted if ho will pursue such a course.” Two Doctors Moke Some Very Curious Devolutions. The sharp controversy between Dr. Ham- mond as complainant and Dr. Sayre as de- fendant is not at all edifying. This wordy battle has so far been waged in the language and with the passion of a slugging match. It would have been better to conduct it in the tongue in which pre- scriptions are written. The medical profession is not honored by such exhibitions of ill temper. On the contrary, it is degraded, for a great propor- tion of readers will turn away with mingled disgust and distrust. Popular distrust of physicians is a public misfortune. But if we believe half that these two gentlemen say of each other how can the community retain its confidence? It is said that men tell the truth when they are mad. In the present instance in- dignation seems to have acted as an uncon- trolled aperient and professional secrets are divulged in volcanic succession. If the people should generalize from this controversy they would conclude that mem- bers of the medical profession lack the elements of harmony and fraternity. They appear to be possessed by a frenzied jeal- ousy of each other. Pride in the skill or genius of a brother practitioner is seldom seen, and the competition for patients is so hot that the success of one rouses the fury of the others. We should judge also from what Dr. Ham- mond and Dr. Sayre say that medical science is by no means an exact sci- ence, that physicians are apt to play the game of blind man’s buff with diseases whose cause is not immediately apparent, and that experiment, with all the risks which the word implies, is to bo found everywhere in the physician’s practice. If learned doctors who have had an expe- rience of many years behind them admit this, is it strange that many families exhibit a tremulous distrust when a father or child is seriously ill ? The fatal admission of these gentlemen is that the doctor, like the detective, acts on clews. Sometimes he is fortunate, gets hold of the right clew and performs a miraculous cure. At other times he is un- fortunate, misses the clew and jumbles about until the vitality of his patient ie ex- hausted. The difference between the phy- sician and the detective, then, is that in the one case the criminal who is hunted escapes safely to Canada, while in the other the vic- tim finds his way to the grave. But we take a more hopeful view of the matter than either Hammond or Sayre. Medical science may not be perfect, but it Dr. Hammond amt Dr. Sayre. The controversy which has broken out be- tween Dr. William A. Hammond and Dr. Lewis A. Sayre is an unfortunate thing. It tends to lessen the faith of laymen in physicians to see two men so widely known engaged in a campaign of personal abuse that would disgrace an ordinary barroom. Is progressive. Its achievements are won- derful. Compared with the science of a century ago it has introduced a sort of mil- lennium. Doctors do not know the whole, and sometimes they make frightful blunders, but the appliances of the profession in me- chanical surgery, for example, excite the profoundest gratitude. The tortures of other days are unknown; the means of rapid cure are multiplied; skill and knowl- edge have phenomenally increased and specialists have come to be looked upon as miracle workers. A large proportion of the public, how- ever, will be seriously affected by the charges of Hammond and Sayre. The whole profes- sion must suffer in consequence. A feeling gains ground that medicine is in many in- stances a risky resource, and people will thoughtlessly rush into novelties. Indeed the mind curer and the Christian scientist aie already competitors not to be despised. If the stories told of Dr. Ham- mond are true, these new comers have a wide and legitimate field in which to work. If the doctor thinks it well to disabuse a patient’s mind by pretending to remove a piece of bone from his skull, and actually cures him by making him believe that a delicate operation has been performed, why should he execrate the man or woman as a charlatan who accomplishes the same re- sult, but without the operation ? If the one case is professional, why should the other be denounced as unprofessional? The simple truth is that doctors are them- selves responsible for both mind cure and Christian science, and if what Hammond says of Sayre and wbat Sayre says of Ham- mond is to be accepted these mind and faith physicians, who eschew medicine and make people well by persuading them that they are well, have a very important mission and should be encouraged. We are sorry for this controversy, not merely because it is undignified, but becairse it does a serious injury to one of the noblest professions that ever drafted genius and skill into the service of humanity.