ANNUAL ADDKESS 
BEFORE THE 
MEDICAL SOCIETY 
OF THE 
STATE OF NEW YORK, 
FEBRUARY 6th, 1867. ANNUAL ADDKESS 
BEFORE THE 
MEDICAL SOCIETY 
OF THE 
STATE OF NEW YORK, 
FEBRUARY 6th, 1867. 
By JOSEPH C. HUTCHISON, M. D., 
OP BROOKLYN, PRESIDENT. 
ALBANY: 
VAN BENTHUYSEN & SONS’ STEAM PRINTING IIOUSE. 
1867. .ANladdress. 
Mr. Vice-President, Gentlemen of the Society, Ladies and Gentle- 
men : 
The subject of the address which the by-laws of the Society 
makes it my duty to deliver on this occasion is, The Moral Power 
of the Profession, instead of Legal Enactments, the best Agency in 
effecting Medical Reform. 
It is a common opinion, in view of the important services ren- 
dered by fltie physicians to the community at large, that it is the 
duty of the Legislature to enact laws for the promotion of medical 
education and the protection of the legitimate members of the 
Profession, as well as the public, from the encroachments of igno- 
rant pretenders, and to discountenance and suppress quackery of 
every class and description. A well instructed body of physicians 
is indeed a necessity in every State, not merely to minister to such 
of its citizens as may suffer from disease or accidental violence, 
but by their professional knowledge and skill to aid the Legisla- 
ture in the enactment of laws having for their object the protec- 
tion of the health, and the promotion of the vigor, comfort and 
general well-being of the entire community: to assist the officers 
of justice in the detection of guilt and the protection of the inno- 
cent; and to render efficient the efforts of the philanthropist to 
diminish crime, pauperism and human suffering. But do we need 
the aid of Government to elevate the profession—to secure to the 
community a competent corps of medical advisers? 
The political system of this country allows the largest freedom 
in everything pertaining to medicine, medical schools and physi- 
cians. In Europe, medicine, in common with other departments 
of science, is under the supervision of Government, and the medi- 
cal profession is regulated by codes more or less elaborate. The 
provisions of these codes, it cannot be denied, are not without 
benefit to society. They protect it against the evils incident to 
irregular and empirical practice; and a body of well instructed 
medical practitioners, adapted to the wants of the community, are 
provided, skilled in every department for the treatment of the 4 
various maladies and necessities that render medical services essen- 
tial to human welfare. Ample provision is also made for the cul- 
tivation of the science, and to aid its progressive advancement. 
It is not objected to European medical legislation, that it is 
defective or without positive value, or unnecessary. In their cir- 
cumstances, and with their system of government, it is indispensa- 
ble. But we contend that all its advantages may be attained under 
our free institutions, and without the interference of government 
legislation. Those who look to legislative action for the redress 
of professional grievances, and point to other countries for exam- 
ples of what they would have introduced among us, do not con- 
sider that between this country and Europe there is no point of 
resemblance, and that all arguments drawn from a supposed 
analogy between their condition and ours, are false and delusive. 
The spirit that governs the Legislation and policy of Europe, 
though meliorated by the influence of the Christian religion, and 
softened by the cultivation of letters, arts and science, have yet 
the taint of their origin. The masses are not an integral part of 
the Government. They sustain it by the fruits of their industry, 
by their courage and by their blood; but they have no participa- 
tion in its legislation, in its privileges, its emoluments or its honors. 
They are deemed incapable of regulating the most common of 
their social measures, or providing for the ordinary wants of 
society. Every social regulation emanates from and is in charge 
of Government; nothing is entrusted to the people. They are 
kept in perpetual wardship and pupilage—governed not for them- 
selves and by themselves, but for others and by others. It is 
made a plea for the deprivation of every legislative function, that 
the people would, from ignorance, want of prudence and forecast, 
damage themselves and prove their oavii worst enemies. 
It would be as idle to attempt the suppression of medical 
quackery by regulations enacted by government, or to introduce 
the European system of education here, with our ideas of civil and 
religious liberty, as it would be to attempt to force upon them, in 
their present circumstances, an adoption of our free institutions as 
a substitute from their system of Church and State. 
A people perfectly free, accustomed to rely on themselves for 
self-protection in the affairs of life, have their intelligence awakened 
and invigorated, and their wits sharpened to a quick sense of their 
self-interest. Let them be instructed in the truth, and understand 
what is best for their interest, and they decide correctly. It is the limited information—I may go further and say, the almost 
entire ignorance that pervades all classes—the highest as well as 
the lowest—of the general principles of science—that is the bane 
of society; it is the pregnant source of most of the social ills, and 
leaves the community to be deceived and preyed upon by charla- 
tans and quacks of every kind, political, financial, religious and 
others, morp numerous even than those that swarm in the medical 
domain. May we not hope that these evils will disappear, as 
general education and the cultivation of the masses advance? 
The medical profession in this country neither ask for nor expect 
any exclusive privileges; but they ought to have under their 
supervision and regulation the medical interests of society. No 
others can understand them so well, and, consequently, manage 
them in a manner to obtain the greatest advantages they can yield. 
The medical community is to the medical interests of society what 
the religious community is to its religious interests. This is main- 
tained in a sound condition by the organization of the various 
religious sects that compose the Christian church. The church 
lives and prospers here independent of State patronage. To no 
sect is granted any exclusive privileges. The Mormon, the Jew 
and the Christian, are alike protected in the enjoyment of their 
respective religious tenets and modes of worship. Our Govern- 
ment has wisely refused to prescribe a curriculum of study for 
those who desire to become religious teachers, or to declare what 
their moral requirements shall be. This matter is left to be deter- 
mined by the parties interested And yet, notwithstanding we 
have no laws prohibitory or protective, our people are as thoroughly 
imbued with the principles of religion, and our clergy, as a body, 
are as intelligent and learned as those of any other country. 
Indeed, the absence of such laws acts as an incentive for intellectual 
and moral culture to such as desire to command the respect and 
confidence of the public. Why shall not we, with equal propriety 
and with the hope of results quite as satisfactory, leave all that 
pertains to the regulation of the medical profession in this country 
to the voluntary action of the profession itself? Let us seek no 
aid from church of State, but become a law unto ourselves, or, 
rather, act above all law save the Divine, since it is certain that we 
alone must protect the honor of the medical profession. I do not 
believe that it would be possible in this country at the present 
day even if it were desirable, to secure the enactment and tho 
faithful execution of laws designed to protect the community 6 
against the evils of empiricism, or to foster a well educated corps 
of medical men. Indeed, through the earnest efforts of phjrsicians, 
such laws have been passed in almost every State in the Union; 
but they have been imperfectly administered or evaded, so as to 
become dead letters upon the statute book, or have been repealed 
at the request of those who procured their enactment, and in some 
instances they have been so amended or modified as really to make 
the charlatan the legal equal of the man of learning and position. 
The history of the legislation touching the practice of physic 
and surgery in our own State, affords a melancholy illustration of 
the truth of these statements. 
The statute enacted in 1806 by the Legislature of this State “to 
incorporate medical societies and to regulate the practice of physic 
and surgery” was among the first efforts made in this country to 
give the medical profession an honorable station in the community. 
In speaking of this law, I)r. Romeyn remarked in his anniversary 
address, delivered in this place in 1809: “That it marked a new 
era in the progress of science in this State.” “The Legislature,” 
he continues, “ has evinced a confidence in the medical profession 
that the powers with which it is invested will be exercised with 
moderation and justice, and that new efforts will be made to pro- 
mote the knowledge of the healing art, and to extend its useful- 
ness.” The act of 1806 made a wide distinction between the 
educated physician and the empiric, by placing the latter under 
serious disabilities. It recited: “ that any person who should com- 
mence practice after the first day ot September then next without 
being duly licensed, (by one of the medical societies) should for- 
ever thereafter be disqualified from collecting any debt or debts 
incurred by such practice; and it further made the unauthorized 
practice of physic and surgery a misdemeanor, punishable by fine 
or imprisonment, or both.”* Such was the estimation in which the 
medical profession was held by our Legislature only sixty years 
ago, and such the means deemed necessary to protect the medical 
interests of society. By this act, those who were properly quali- 
fied by education to discharge the duties of the physician were 
made known, and distinguished from the host of pretenders and 
imposters who assume the title and make pretensions to the charac- 
ter of physicians. 
But the times have sadly changed. That profession whose origin 
is Divine, (for “ Of the Most High cometh healing,”) shall enjoy no 
exclusive privileges, and the public must lookout for itself. Why 7 
should the State concern itself with one who has not the wit to 
take care of himself? If he choose to risk his life and health in 
the lottery of quackery it is his own look out. Should the chances 
£0 against him the State loses a citizen, albeit not gifted with 
knowledge or wisdom; and it is not the people the Republic 
need, but wise and intelligent citizens. It is true 
are prohibited, and the vender of lottery tickets is punished: The 
risking of money in gambling is interdicted, and gamblers* are 
denounced. But in what respect do the lottery and gambling of 
quackery, in which health, life and human suffering are the stake, 
differ from games of chance, where the stake is money alone? 
In 1830; the Thompsonians raised a hue and cry against these 
restrictive laws, and the law of 1806 was so modified by the Legis- 
lature as to make the unauthorized practice of medicine a penal 
instead of a criminal offence. Quackery then not only ceased to 
be a crime, but it was no longer even a penal offence wrhen prac- 
ticed by a class of empirics known as botanical doctors or Thomp- 
sonians, provided they prescribe only vegetable remedies 
indigenous in the United States. But even these concessions did 
not keep this empirical set from a merited oblivion, and they have 
become almost extinct. It was further modified from time to time 
by enactments, repeals and amendments, all tending to break 
down the restraints upon medical imposters; and in 1844 all 
restrictive laws were abrogated, the tide of quackery was let loose, 
and the quack, whom Swift correctly described as a vampire, that 
lives on human blood, was hereafter to have the fullest liberty to 
puff himself into practice, as a man possessing skill and knowledge, 
with the express sanction of an act of the Legislature. 
But even this was not enough to illustrate the democracy of 
medicine. Two other so-called systems of medical practice pre- 
sented their pretentious claims to legal recognition, and our Leg- 
islature, desirous of allowing the largest freedom in everything 
pertaining to the healing art, incorporated the Homoeopathic Med- 
ical Society of the State of New York in 1862, and the Eclectic 
Medical Society in 1865, making them subject: “ to all the 
liabilities, and entitled to all the powers and privileges of the 
Medical Society of the State of New York.” And to-day the 
enlightened and skillful votary of legitimate medicine occupies in 
our State the same legal standing as he who sacrifices his common 
sense and his conscience in the fraudulent practice of the most 
odious quackery 1 8 
But why should wo complain that our legal powers and priv- 
ileges are not more enlarged? Is it not rather a subject for 
congratulation that they are so limited, since wo have to enjoy 
them in common with the unscrupulous pretender? After all, it is 
the public rather than the medical profession who are the sufferers 
and legislative protection against the evils incident to 
empirWi practice. The profession can take care of itself, and it is 
their duty to protect the public, who intend well, as far as possi- 
ble. Men would not knowingly jeopardize their health and lives 
by a dangerous practice. When quackery is preferred it is from a 
belief that it offers more certainty and safety than regular medicine, 
or it may be employed as the result of accident. Every city, 
every street, and every poor-house presents to our view the 
unfortunate dupes of the cruelty and cupidity of legalized quackery, 
with their shattered frames, their hopes and future happiness 
blasted, and life itself a burden! Or, perchance, a poor man, with 
his axe or his chisel, accidentally wounds an artery and sends for, or 
has sent to him one who proves to be an empiric, who is befogged 
and bewildered by the flow of blood; and after the lapse of a few 
hours, the father of an infant family, depending on him for sup- 
port, is in his coffin, and the grave quickly receives one of the 
thousands of victims of “ legalized quackery.” 
The public, on the subject of medicine, intend well, but on 
everything connected with it they are lamentably ignorant. Few, 
indeed, have the slightest idea of medicine as a science. The 
opinions generally entertained, even by the best educated, arc 
vulgar errors. Can we be surprised, then, that our legislators 
should be deluded into the endorsement of fantastic systems and 
modes of treatment, by the plausible assertions of cunning impos- 
tors, by partial and deceptive statements, the truth of which they 
have not the requisite knowledge to determine, and are compelled 
to take on trust? There is no empiricism but what is short-lived. 
A false doctrine is adopted by and receives the clamorous plau- 
dits of the deceived and credulous crowd; but the fallacious 
promises held out are soon belied by experience, and neglect and 
oblivion follow. But another and another succeeds to meet the 
same fate; and this course continues and will be perpetuated, 
until the public mind is enlightened on the true character of med- 
ical science, and understands the limits within which it is restricted. 
Public opinion, enlightened by correct knowlege, is the best 
legislation. 9 
The preceding considerations lead us to the conclusion, that the 
spirit which governs the legislative policy of this country is op- 
posed to granting to the medical profession the protection of law, 
or restricting the citizen from placing his life and health at the 
mercy of the charlatan—that the efforts to elevate the profession, 
and to suppress quackery by legal enactments, have not only sig- 
nally failed, but have operated prejudicially; and the sooner we 
rid ourselves of the idea of legislative protection, the better for 
us and the community. 
The medical profession of this country may protect itself and 
the public, to a certain extent, against the evils of empiricism, 
regulate the practice of legitimate medicine, and furnish stand- 
ards for candidates for the doctorate, by the exercise of a moral 
power, which cannot be disregarded or resisted if we are true to 
ourselves, and which will be far more efficient than any act of 
legislation. 
Let us inquire how the inherent power of the profession can be 
made efficient in securing to the community a body of educated 
and well dieiplined physicians? It was a saying of Socrates that 
he did not pretend to give new ideas to his disciples, but to ena- 
ble them to recognize their own ideas, and to teach them to think 
for themselves, rather than to think for them. Your own con- 
sciousness will, I think, attest the truthfulness of what I have to 
say on this subject. It will be but a repetition, for the most part, 
of the lessons of the past But this should be an encouragement, 
for it indicates that the suggestions must be good which have 
been so often repeated. 
I. Medical instruction, both by the private preceptor and the 
medical schools, must be correctly conducted. It is a common thing 
for the private practitioner to declaim against the imperfections 
of the schools, and to charge them with the responsibility of sup- 
plying a body of properly educated physicians. He sees the 
mote but is unconscious of the beam. There is a joint response 
bility here. The first barrier against the intrusion of ignorance 
into the profession, must be at the door of the private office. 
There should be a faithful sentinel here, who would not allow 
any one to pass the threshold that is not fitted by a proper pre- 
liminary education and other qualifications to enter upon the 
study of a liberal profession. The beginning of the student’s 
career is the most important period of his pupilage. Unless ho 
start properly, be judiciously directed and thoroughly instructed 10 
at first, his subsequent course will bo eminently unsatisfactory. 
Instead of being allowed to pursue bis studies at random and 
with but little profit, as is too often the case now, he should be put 
upon a systematic course of reading, accompanied by examinations. 
The greatest defect in our system of medical education is the care- 
less and inadequate manner in which wo discharge our duties to 
office pupils. Office instruction is often a mere sham. If the 
profession and the schools will co-operate, each holding the other 
to a strict accountability, the physicians of this country will reach 
a much higher standard of attainments. 
Through the influence mainly, I believe of the united voice of 
the profession, as expressed through the American Medical Asso- 
ciation, the instruction in the medical schools has already greatly 
improved, and is every year becoming more complete, demonstra- 
tive and practical. The annual lecture term in many of the col- 
leges has been lengthened, the number of professorships and of 
subjects taught has been increased, and clinical instruction in the 
hospital is a more prominent feature. 
The theoretical instruction of students in our Medical Colleges 
is perhaps well enough. Most of them successfully undergo a 
rigorous examination on the branches taught, and indeed know at 
the conclusion of the collegiate courses more of these subjects 
than the best practitioners of the country. Indeed, a large part 
of what is learned at the schools is lost in the course of years, 
because the study necessary to maintain it, is at least for all 
these branches, impossible to the busy practitioner of medicine. 
That he knows a great deal more at the outset than his profes- 
sional necessities compel him to retain, demonstrates satisfactorily 
to my mind, that his book or lecture-knowledge is at least suffi- 
cient. But suppose that a student were taken to a hospital, and 
directed to diagnosticate and treat a variety of cases, would he not 
feel to want, and that wofully, of the kind of education which 
from the nature of the case could not be obtained at college and 
hospital clinics, as ordinarily conducted? These are well enough, 
but you might as well expect to make mere musicians by hearing 
music, or affirm that those must be astronomers who daily behold 
the sun, moon and stars, sis to expect men to become surgeons by 
seeing operations; or physicians by witnessing the common calami- 
ties of sickness and death. Hence, daily clinical instruction in the 
wards of a hospital, thus bringing the student into actual contact 
with the patient, has been demanded by the profession through 11 
the American Medical Association, and many of our schools have 
already adopted it. Since the government cannot interpose its 
power for the protection of the public from the deceptions and 
fatal practices of charlatans, it is the duty of the profession, as it 
is the interest of the community, to sustain such schools as exact 
the highest grade of acquirements, practical as well as theoretical, 
for the possession of its honors; thus giving a guarantee that the 
possessor of its diploma is worthy of confidence. 
II. Another important means of effecting medical reform, and of 
increasing our legitimate influence with the public, is: The thorough 
organization of the profession into county or district, as well as 
State and JVational Associations. It is the duty of every one to 
join these associations. In this way, those physicians who have 
gone through with regular courses of instruction, and have been 
recognized as belonging to the profession, can be made known 
and distinguished from the host of pretenders, imposters and 
empirics, who assume the title and make pretensions to the charac- 
ter of physicians. The register of the county medical society 
should contain, as was originally designed by the law of this 
State, the names of every regular practitioner in good standing in 
the county, and the list should be published at least once in each 
year, as is done in Kings count}', in one or more newspapers. The 
act to regulate county medical societies, passed at the last session 
of the Legislature, gives them: “full power and authority to 
enforce discipline among their members, and obedience to their rules 
and regulations, with power to expel or otherwise discipline as 
they may deem most advisable for the best interests of said 
society.” This law enables the county society to expel or exclude 
from membership, such as have by their moral delinquencies for- 
feited their privileges and standing, and lost the confidence and 
respect of the profession, as Avell as those who have been guilty 
of notorious irregularities in practice. So that membership in a 
county medical society offers, or should offer to the public the 
surest guide in the selection of their medical advisers. In many 
of the counties of this state, the county medical societies are not 
in active operation. This is a serious error and should be corrected 
at once. 
The thorough organization of the medical profession, and its 
representation in County, State and National associations, while it 
will build up a medical public opinion that the profession will 
feel itself bound to look to and be governed by, will also give a 12 
direction to the general public opinion that will do more to dis- 
countenance ridiculous doctrines, to repress empiricism and to 
destroy quackery, than could bo effected by the most stringent 
laws. 
III. It is important that toe keep our skirts clear of everything 
pertaining to irregular medical practices of whatever kind or 
description. VY”e should not only avoid all complicity with them, 
but even the suspicion of a rpiasi recognition of them. Let us 
remember that a corrupt tree bringeth forth only evil fruit—let 
us avoid the very appearance of evil. Especially should we depre- 
cate the introduction of medical heresies into the army and navy 
and into our civil hospitals. The power of the profession has 
already been successfully exerted in both these directions against 
the absurdities of Hahnemanism; but we must look out for the 
future. I cannot persuade myself that this popular imposture is 
worth the ammunition of reason, and sarcasm and denunciation 
that has been expended upon its flimsy structure. Those who are 
foolish enough to embrace it will not be driven from the delight- 
ful task of fostering the delusion, by any arguments we can adduce. 
They will ascribe our opposition to selfish motives, and are vain 
enough to cling to the illusion all the more strongly the greater 
the effort which is made to detach them from their hold. The 
discussion of the subject, with the public, gives it an importance 
it might otherwise never obtain. As a system it must soon become 
effete, and it will be better to let it “ severely alone” than to warm 
it into life by the fire of controversy. Every citizen has the right 
to select whatever kind of medical practice he pleases. But in the 
hospitals and in the army and navy the case is different. There 
the patient has his physician selected for him by those in authority, 
and it is our duty as physicians, as good citizens, as Christian 
philanthropists, to resist every effort to force upon him, without 
his consent, any system of irregular practice. 
The first attempt in our State to introduce an empirical practice 
in hospitals occurred in 1849, when a petition was sent to the 
board of health of the city of New York, requesting the estab- 
lishment of a cholera hospital, in which patients might be treated 
on the homoeopathic plan.” This petition was referred to the 
medical council, which consisted of three eminent physicians, 
whom the Sanitary Committee of the Board of Health associated 13 
with them for advice and consultation. They made the following 
report: 
New York, June 19, 1849. 
“A resolution having been offered to the Board ot Health, that 
a hospital for the reception of cholera patients be established in 
this city, in which the practice of Homoeopathic physicians shall 
be pursued, and the same having been referred by the Sanitary 
Committee to the medical council, the undersigned state that 
should the above resolution be adopted, they see no satisfactory 
reason why the same courtesy should not be extended to the 
Ilydropathists—the Thompsonians—the Chromo-thermalists, and 
indeed all others claiming to have specific modes of treating the 
cholera.” 
“By intelligent and well-educated physicians generally, homoeo- 
pathy is looked upon as a species of empiricism. It is neither 
practiced by them nor countenanced by them. Concurring entirely 
with their professional brethren on this subject, the undersigned 
conceive that the public authorities of our city would not consult 
either their own dignity or the public good, by lending the sanc- 
tion of their or influence to homoeopathy or any other 
irregular practice.” 
Signed, JOHN B. BECK, M. D., 
JOSEPH M. SMITH. M. D., 
SAMUEL W. MOORE, M. D., 
Medical Council. 
Seth Geer, M. D., Resident Physician, 
Richard L. Morris, M. D., Health Commissioner. 
The report was adopted by the Sanitary Committee. 
The noble men who made that report have been gathered to 
their fathers, and if they had done nothing else to entitle them 
to our grateful remembrance, this, alone, which was the means of 
saving the profession from an indignity, and the sick poor from 
the ruthless hand of medical charlatanism, would be sufficient to 
embalm their memories in the hearts of every votary of legiti- 
mate medicine. 
In the year 1857, we find the partisans of homoeopathy, with 
a pompous self-complacency, again demanding recognition in the 
public hospitals, by a resolution introduced into the Board of 
Governors of the Alins House Department, New York, providing: 14 
“That one-half of Bellevue hospital should beset apart for the 
practice of homoeopathy.” The subject was referred to a com- 
mittee, and the chairman, the late Hon. Washington Smith, pre- 
sented an able report adverse to the merits of the system, and its 
introduction into hospital practice, which lead to the defeat of the 
resolution. A large portion of the report is taken up with a col- 
lection of the results of trials of this pretentious system in various 
European hospitals, which must convince the most skeptical honest 
mind of its utter worthlessness. 
Referring to the claims of homoeopathy to recognition in the 
hospital on the ground of its popularity, the committee express 
the following opinion: 
“That this system is wide-spread, and that it has adherents 
among the intelligent portion of the community, is an argument 
that applies with equal force to every system of medical empiricism. 
The opinion of a man of simply general intelligence has properly 
no weight in regard to any new theory, and its application to 
practice in any department of the arts or sciences. We should 
naturally look for a reliable opinion of the merits of .such theory 
to the scientific cultivators of the art in which its application is 
proposed. Thus tested, the homceopathic system must utterly 
fail to receive our sanction. We appeal in vain to its adherents 
to point to a single medical man among its advocates in this city, 
whose scientific attainments in his own profession would entitle 
his opinion to our confidence. In no department of science is 
there more activity in the investigation of the principles upon 
w hich it is based, more acuteness in observation, or better logic in 
the deduction of practical precepts from such principles and 
observations, than in medicine. And yet the records of science 
show that all those who truly advance tin; several departments of 
medicine, all, without exception, both in this and foreign countries, 
belong to the ranks of the so-called regular system.” 
In reply to the suggestion that the board should grant the 
prayer of the petitioners because they were a numerous body of 
highly respected citizens, the committee remark: 
“ But whence do these petitions emanate ? Do they come to us 
from the inmates of the hospital who arc to be the subjects of the 
experiment? Do the sick who crowd the wards complain of the 
incompetency of the medical officers, and of the inefficiency of 
their treatment, and petition us to change their medical attend- 
ants and introduce a new system of practice? Do these petitions 15 
even emanate from the honest laboring classes of our city, whom 
the vicissitudes of life and the misfortunes of poverty may at any 
moment remove to the wards of Bellevue for relief to their 
bodily ills? These are questions which this Board would do well 
to ponder before it acts.” 
In view of the facts contained in this report, the Governors 
refused to assume the grave responsibility of forcing an empirical 
practice upon the poor confided to their care. 
In the years 1861-2, the homceopathists appealed to Congress 
with petitions, backed by 35,000 names, asking it to recognize 
homoeopathy in.the army and to introduce it into the military 
hospitals. The medical profession throughout the land, believing 
that such a measure would be detrimental to the life of the sick 
soldier, and that it would degrade and destroy the efficiency of the 
medical staff of the army, indignantly protested through their 
medical societies, medical journals and individually, against the 
enactment of such a law. Nowhere did the profession second the 
efforts of the late Surgeon General Finley, to prevent homoeo- 
pathists obtaining an official recognition in the army, more 
vigorously and efficiently than in our own State. The volume of 
our Transactions for 1862 contains a memorial from the Oneida 
County Medical Society, and a communication from the New York 
Academy of Medicine, urging the State Medical Society to express 
to our members of Congress their emphatic disapprobation of the 
efforts that were being made to legalize the appointment of 
homceopathists as army surgeons, because, says the academy of 
medicine: 
“ It is no more worthy of such introduction than other kindred 
methods of practice as closely allied to quackery;” and because 
“ such appointments would dissatisfy-and dishearten the medical 
staff of the army, who understand the true character of homoeo- 
pathy, and who have entered the service of their country with 
confidence that the government would strive to elevate the 
standard and promote the efficiency of the medical staff—results 
surely to be defeated by the appointment of homoeopaths.” 
These communications were referred to' a committee of this 
Society for consideration, and through their report, which was 
unanimously adopted, we resolved “ to present a determined front 
in opposition not only to homoeopathy, but to all other irregular- 
ities in the medical practice of the army.” The appearance of cholera in the city of New York lawt summer 
afforded another occasion for the homcBopathists to present their 
claims for recognition before the public. Petitions numerously 
signed were presented to the Metropolitan Board of Health, asking 
that a cholera hospital and district be placed under homoeopathic 
management. The subject was referred to the Sanitary Committee 
of the Board, who made the following report: 
“Your Committee think favorably of the request made by the 
homoeopathic physicians to be assigned to hospitals, and recommend 
that Dr. Smith make a selection from such practitioners as shall 
offer their services, and that one-half of the hospital at the Five 
Points, and that one-fourth of the hospital at the Battery, be put 
under the medical care of these physicians.” 
It should be noted that the Board of Health took no action upon 
this report, so that the entire responsibility of the matter is with 
its medical members who compose the Sanitary Committee. At 
the meeting of the Board, held May 11th, 18(50, the Chairman of 
the Sanitary Committee, is reported in the New York Tribune, 
Majr 12th, to have said, that he was willing to permit homceopa- 
thists to practice in the hospitals under the surveillance of allo- 
pathisls, but that he had no confidence in them and would not 
on his own responsibility trust them with a patient. He merely as 
a legislator permitted the public prejudice to take the precedence 
of his private convictions. 
The medical members of the Board of Health were selected as 
such, because of their professional knowledge, and were appointed 
a Sanitary Committee by the Board for the same reason. It was 
supposed that their official duties required them to do only what 
in their judgment was best for the public good. Did any members 
of that committee believe tflat they would “consult either their 
own dignity or the public good, by lending the sanction of their 
name or influence to homoeopathy or any other irregular mode of 
practice ?” Can we admit the monstrous doctrine that a public 
servant in the discharge of his public duties must ignore his 
private convictions ? Are not men selected for public trusts on 
account of the private opinions they arc known or supposed to 
hold? Suppose the illustrious Grant, when he was placed in 
supreme command of our armies, instead of relying on his profes- 
sional knowledge and skill—on his “private judgment”—in the 
management of his forces, had yielded to the “ prejudices of the 17 
public” as expressed through the political generals of the 
newspaper offices, think you that he would either have discharged 
his duty to his country, or saved the republic from disaster? 
Did the sanitary committee believe that the admission of this 
evil into the hospitals, in the manner proposed, would expose its 
entire inefficiency, and good would result from the experiment ? 
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Surely, if it 
is necessary to fight this battle over again, after the thorough ex- 
posure of the results of homoeopathic practice in hospitals, con- 
tained in the report of the Hon. Washington Smith, already refer- 
red to, the public will not believe, even “though one rose from 
the dead.” Moreover, does the end here justify the means? Why, 
we migdit as well steal money to support our missionaries. 
Were the committee influenced by the popularity of homoeopa- 
thy, and the respectability of its petitioners ? If this was a motive 
for their action, is there any “ satisfactory reason why the same 
courtesy should not be extended to all others claiming to have 
specific modes of treating cholera ?” Why should the homceopa- 
thists be allowed to set themselves up as the exclusive objects of 
our respect, and insult common sense no less than outrage common 
decency, by calling upon us to discard the accumulated lessons of 
wisdom and experience ? 
These petitions to the Metropolitan Board of Health did not 
“ emanate from the honest laboring classes of our cities, whom the 
vicissitudes of life and the misfortunes of poverty may at any 
moment remove to the wards of “ a cholera hospital for relief to 
their bodily ills.” It is notorious that our poorer classes are 
generally correct in their notions of medical practice. This is 
shown by the comparatively small number who seek relief at 
the homoeopathic dispensaries, while the other dispensaries are 
crowded. Did not the sanitary committee incur a fearful respon- 
sibility in consenting that a portion of the sick poor of our cities 
should be compelled to submit to an experiment with a system of 
medical practice, in which neither the committee nor the patients 
had the slightest confidence ? 
The action of the sanitary committee must be considered also in 
its relations to medical ethics. “ By intelligent and well educated 
physicians generally, homoeopathy is looked upon as a species of 
empiricism.” The excellent code of ethics adopted by the American 
Medical Association, to which we have all subscribed, makes it 
culpable for us to countenance any species of empiricism. And 18 
the responsibility is increased tenfold when we not only counte- 
nance, but actually recommend that the inmates of our hospitals 
shall be subjected to the treatment of ruthless charlatans. Sec- 
tion 4 of the 3d chapter of the code of ethics declares “It is the 
duty of physicians, who are frequent witnesses of the enormities 
committed by quackery, and the injury to health and even the 
destruction of life caused by the use of quack medicines, to en- 
lighten the public on these subjects, to expose the injuries sus- 
tained by the unwary from the devices and pretensions of artful 
empirics and impostors.” 
The Metropolitan Board of Health may be said to be the crea- 
tion of the physicians of the metropolitan district. The proposi- 
tion for the enactment of a suitable health law originated in the 
New York Academy of Medicine in 1857. Year after year since 
that time, the medical men of the district have been in their socie- 
ties, in public and in private, in the Legislature and in the lobby, 
the persistent and uncompromising advocates of the metropolitan 
health bill (and the State Society has always given the measure its 
cordial support). Defeated again and again, but not discouraged, 
ever conscious of the benefits it would confer upon the public, 
they pursued the subject with an enthusiasm seldom equalled, and 
succeeded finally in securing the co-operation of some influential 
non-professional citizens, and after nine years systematic and de- 
termined effort, triumphed over the moneyed influence which had 
so long corrupted the Legislature, and the metropolitan health 
bill became a law. 
Is it surprising therefore, under the circumstances, that the 
members of an honorable profession should feel indignant at the 
attempt to give homoeopathy an importance it had never before 
attained, by placing its followers upon the same platform with 
themselves ? 
It is with feelings of sincere regret that I have felt callcd'upon 
by a stern sense of duty and a respect for my professional views, to 
utter an earnest protest in my official capacity against the action 
of the sanitary committee of the board of health, relating to 
homoeopathy. It would have been far more agreeable to me, per- 
sonally as well as officially, to have commended all their acts. No 
one wrho knows the gentlemen who compose that committee, will 
doubt for a moment that they acted conscientiously and from the 
best motives; but the interests of the public and the profession 
are too sacred to allow us to overlook tor this reason an error of 19 
judgment which might have led to such disastrous results, and 
the tendency of which was to degrade the profession. 
I have thus hinted at some of the prominent land marks that 
may guide us in our efforts to elevate the character of the medical 
profession. They are 
1st. That we be independent in character and cease to cling to 
the delusive phantom of legislative reform, and disdain an unmanly 
truckling to the ignorant and prejudiced in power and out of 
power. 
2d. That the great body of the profession insist upon a more 
complete system of medical education ; that they discourage the 
admission to pupilage of illiterate and incompetent persons, and 
encourage the schools to a strict fulfillment of their duty in con- 
ferring the doctorate on those alone whose competency has been 
fully tested. 
3d. That there be a systematic organization of the profession 
throughout the country, “as well for the cultivation of a community 
of interest, as for the collection into a common fund, available to 
all, the personal experience and observations of each practitioner.” 
4th. That the lines of demarcation between true science and the 
false systems of medicine shall be so broad and deep, that even 
among the non-professional community, he who runs may read. 
It must be obvious to any intelligent and unprejudiced observer, 
that the last fifteen years have witnessed a marked improvement 
in medical education, and a stricter observance of the code of 
ethics. And to-day, in no other country in the world is the pro- 
fession of medicine as widely respected, and as intrinsically respect- 
able, as in these United States. Here only is the physician esteemed 
the equal of men who occupy the highest social rank, and here 
only is he the leader in all Associations for the promotion of 
learning—and in every humane and benevolent Society. The 
humblest physician, may by a zealous application of his time and 
talents to his profession, and by an upright and dignified course 
of conduct, inspire those out of the profession with respect for 
his character and opinions, and rise in the confidence and good 
opinion of the intelligent, the judicious and the wise. 
I had here proposed to close, but the notice of a bill in the 
Legislature to prevent vivisections for scientific purposes, or in 
other words to obstruct the study and improvement of the healing 
art, calls for a brief notice. The Medical Society of the State of 
New York, to-day, through a memorial and resolutions which were unanimously passed, expressed their disapprobation of the pro- 
posed law. An examination of this subject by an enlightened 
Legislature, will satisfy them that every physiological discovery 
of importance is due to experiments on living animals, and that 
the future advancement of physiology, as well as practical medicine 
and surgery, must be due to the same source of information. 1 
cannot be persuaded that the proposition will be seriously enter- 
tained—that our law-makers w ill for a moment think of deforming 
the statute book by such an improper, not to say inhuman enact- 
ment.