SAIlsTT LOTJIS 
(flmical iU'cord, 
A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF 
MEDICINE AND SURGERY. 
EXTRA. 
VOLUME 4 NO. 6. 
WHOLE NO. - 42. 
TERMS: $2 IN ADVANCE. 
SINGLE COPY. - 25 CTS. 
ST. LOUIS, SEPT., 1877. 
WM. B. HAZARD, M. D., Editor. 
CONTENTS : 
EDITORIAL INTERVIEW WITH 
DR. J. MARION SIMS, 
IN relation to the 
WOMAN’S HOSPITAL CONTROVERSY. 
ZtSTOTIOIE. 
The St. Louis Conical Record will continue to be independent in all things ; will ex- 
pose all shams, follies and charlatan-like practices in the protession, no matter who is impli- 
cated. Having no connection or relation with any society, school or corporation, it is under 
no obligations to any person whatever, and will be devoted strictly to the interests of medicine. 
All who are interested in medical progress, who prefer a journal fully alive to the events 
of the day, and fearless in its attacks upon error wherever found, will subscribe to the Clinical 
Record and keep their bills paid up. St. Louis is now the acknowledged medical center of 
the West and the Clinical Record is its representative journal. 
Among the distinguished writers who have contributed to the columns of the Clinical 
Record, and who are expected to write for its pages, ma}T be named : Professor William A. 
Hammond, M. D., Prof. Montrose A. Pallen, M. D., of New York City ; Prof. J. K. Bauduy, 
M. D., Prof. Louis Bauer, M. D., Prof. John T. Hodgen, M. D., St. Louis; and David 
Prince, M. D., of Jacksonville, 111. 
The Clinical Record, in order to preserve its most prominent feature, solicits clinical 
reports from every section. All contributions will be carefully considered and the best 
selected for publication. 
Specimen copies sent on receipt of twenty-five cents. All Literary and Business Com- 
"dcations, Books for Review, Exchanges, etc., should be addressed to 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD, 
212 North Fifth Street, St. Louis, Mo. 154 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
correct understanding of the entire case it 
will be best, perhaps, to go back to the 
beginning of the hospital and of your rela- 
tions to it in its earlier days. Will you 
please state in what relation you stood to 
the founding of the Woman’s Hospital of 
the State of New York? 
I)r. S.—I went to New York in October, 
1853. I soon after concieved the idea of 
establishing a hospital for the treatment of 
the diseases of women. I had the good 
fortune to gain the friendship and assist- 
ance of Drs. John W. Francis, Valentine 
Mott, Alex. H. Stevens, Edward Delafield 
and Horace Green, together with Hon. 
Peter Cooper and Hon. Erastus C. Bene- 
dict. With the endorsement and coopera- 
tion of these gentlemen, I was eventually 
enabled to organize a board of lady man- 
agers, which was known as the Woman’s 
Hospital Association. It consisted of 
thirty-five members. The principal offi- 
cers of the Association were, Mrs. David 
Codwise, Mrs. William B. Astor, Mrs. 
Ogden Hoffman, Mrs. Jacob Le Roy, and 
Mrs. T. C. Doremus. 
This association was formed on the 10th 
of February, 1855, and the hospital was 
opened for the reception of patients on the 
first day of May following. I was ap- 
pointed Surgeon to the hospital, with the 
medical gentlemen previously named as the 
Consulting Board. 
The hospital was filled the day it was 
opened, and there were always more appli- 
cants for admission than could be received. 
Needing funds to start it with, I appeared 
before the Common Council with Mrs. 
Doremus, Dr.- Francis, Dr. Mott and Mr. 
H. L. Stuart, and obtained ten thousand 
dollars from the city for the use of the 
hospital. 
The Board of Lad}’ Managers, instead of 
giving me an assistant physician, gave me < 
a female secretary, who knew nothing about < 
medicine. After six months’ experience, I 
saw that I must have a qualified assistant, i 
I applied to the Board of Lady Managers, < 
; and they authorized me to appoint any one 
who would suit me. I offered the appoint- 
ment first to Dr. Johnston, son of Dr. 
Frank U. Johnston, of New York, who- 
could not accept it. I then offered it to Dr. 
George F. Shfady, now Surgeon to the 
Presbyterian Flospital and editor of the 
Medical Record, who also declined it. 
Soon after this I accidentally made the 
acquaintance of Dr. T. A. Emmet, to whom 
I offered the place, which he accepted. 
Editor.—Allow me to interrupt you, Dr. 
Sims. Is it to be understood that you were 
the originator and sole founder of the 
Woman’s Hospital? 
Du. S.—Certainly, that is the fact. 
Editor.—And its only active medical 
officer during the first six months of its 
existence ? 
Dr. S.—Yes. 
Editor.—How was the transition effected 
by which this temporary Woman’s Hospital 
was changed into the Woman’s Hospital of 
the State of New York? 
Dr. S.—A year’s experience proved to 
the satisfaction of everybody connected 
with the institution that it should be en- 
larged and placed on a more permanent 
footing. To this end, I went before the 
legislature and asked for a charter of incor- 
poration under the name and style of the- 
Woman’s Hospital of the State of New 
York. Hon. E. C. Benedict wrote the 
charter, and by his cooperation and that of 
Hon. James W. Beekman and Mr. A. R. 
Wetmore, the charter was obtained creat- 
ing a Board of Governors composed of 
twenty-seven gentlemen. Among whom 
were Hon. Peter Cooper, Hon. Erastus C. 
Benedict, George T. Tremble, Robert B. 
Minturn, and others. The ladies consti- 
tuting the original Woman’s Hospital 
Association of the first institution be- 
came, under the new charter, the Board 
of Lady Managers of the Woman’s Hos- 
pital of the State of New York, whose 
duty it was to manage the domestic con- 
cerns of the hospital, while the Board of ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
155 
Governors raised funds for building pur- 
poses and organized the Medical Board. 
About a 3’ear later I obtained an act from 
the Legislature authorizing the Common 
Council of the CU3’ of New York to give 
us a site for the hospital. The city gave 
us the block of land between 49th and 50th 
streets, and Fourth and Lexington avenues, 
known asr the “ Old Potter’s Field of 1832.” 
After this I went before the Legislature 
again, and with the assistance of Hon. 
Messrs. Beekman, Benedict and Wetmore, 
obtained an appropriation of $50,000, for 
building purposes, which we subsequently 
received after we had complied with the 
specified conditions. 
Editor.—What plans of hospital con- 
struction were adopted, and who suggested 
them? 
Dr. S.—The Board of Governors ap- 
pointed Mr. Rich architect, in 1860, and 
adopted a plan with which I was not satis- 
fied. In 1861 I went to Europe for recrea- 
tion and for the purpose of stud3’ing hospi- 
tal construction. I there saw that the 
pavilion plan was the onl3' one adopted for 
building hospitals, and on m3’ return to 
New York, in 1862, I submitted a plan, 
through the new architect, Mr. Harrison, 
which was accepted b3T the Board of Gov- 
ernors. One pavilion was finished in 1867, 
and the second is just now being completed. 
Editor.—How was the medical service 
of the hospital performed, and b3T whom? 
Dr. S.—From its foundation, in 1855, to 
1862, when I went to Europe, I performed 
the service, with one assistant; during m3' 
absence, Dr. Emmet replaced me as sur- 
geon-in-chief. After m3’ return I was 
elected one of the Board of Governors. 
Finding that there was general professional 
dissatisfaction with the “ one man power ” 
in the institution, I, as one of the Board 
of Governors, induced the Board to remodel 
the medical service b3’ creating a medical 
board of four, among, whom the beds in the 
hospital were to be equally divided. The 
new hospital was opened with sevent3’ beds. 
The Governors selected Drs. Peaslee, Em- 
met, Thomas and 1113’self as members of 
this new organization. 
Editor.—Did you remodel the Medical 
Board for the purpose of obtaining an active 
position in the Woman’s Hospital? 
Dr. S.—No, I did not. On m3’ return 
from Europe Dr. Emmet offered me half the 
medical service in the hospital, which I de- 
clined. Dr. Delafield, then President of 
the Consulting Board of the Woman’s Hos- 
pital, wished to make me surgeon-in-cliief 
of the hospital instead of Dr. Emmet, 
which I also declined, and when the new 
regime went into effect I accepted the place 
of surgeon 011I3’ at the earnest solicitation 
of Mr. Benedict, Mr. Beekman, President 
of the Board of Governors, Dr. Delafield, 
Dr. Gautier and others. The hospital was 
unpopular with the profession in New York 
while I was at the head of it, because it was 
WI10II3’ under the control of one man. It 
was more unpopular under Dr. Emmet, 
because of the one-man power, which was 
now exerted over a larger hospital, one of 
sevent3r beds instead of twenty-four. I 
reorganized it with the view to meet the 
wishes of the medical profession, and with 
the particular object of placing m}r then 
good friend, Dr. Thomas, in the institution.. 
Thus 3’ou see, there was a general reason, 
and a special reason for its reorganization. 
But for m3’ warm personal friendship for 
Dr. Thomas and my desire to place him in 
the hospital, I don’t think I would have 
troubled m3’self with the reorganization of 
the Medical Board. It is said among the 
doctors of New York, that Dr. Thomas is 
the author of the attack made 011 
me b3’ Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas. It is 
the old stoiy of ingratitude, etc. 
Editor.—How long was Dr. Emmet 3'our 
assistant surgeon ? 
Dr. S.—From the fall of 1855, until I 
went to Europe, in 1862, nearh’ seven 3'ears. 
Editor.—What qualifications were pos- 
sessed b3r Dr. Emmet, which recommended 
him to 3’ou for that position ? 156 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
Dr. S.—He was a graduate in medicine, 
member of a good famity, and had just 
married a very dear friend of mine, whom 
I had knowm from the time she was a little 
girl. 
Editor.—Was he specially versed in 
gynecology ? 
Dr. S.—Not at all; the Woman’s Hos- 
pital has been his great school, and I ini- 
tiated him into the methods of treatment 
that are followed to-day in that institution. 
Editor.—Your relations with him were 
very friendly ? 
Dr. S.—They were more than that. I 
left the Woman’s Hospital in his charge, 
when I went to Europe, gave him my office, 
gave him all my private business and per- 
sonal influence; and if he had been my 
own son I could not have done more for 
him. 
Editor.—How long have you known Dr. 
Thomas ? 
Dr. S.—I do not know exactly ; I can 
say about eighteen 3Tears—more or less. 
Editor.—What was his reputation as a 
medical man at that time ? 
Dr. S.—He was known as an admirable 
teacher and a most accomplished physician. 
Editor.—What have been your profes- 
sional relations with him ? 
Dr. S.—From the beginning of our ac- 
quaintance we have been on the most 
friendly terms, and I have alwa}rs enter- 
tained for his industry and talents the 
highest admiration. 
Editor.—Had he made a specialty of the 
diseases of woman before his acquaintance 
with you ? 
Dr. S.—Not that I know of. 
Editor.—What was his first connection 
with the Woman’s Hospital, and when was 
it made ? 
Dr. S.—About sixteen or seventeen years 
ago (previously to m3' going to Europe) I 
gave him the privilege of holding an out- 
door clinic at the Woman’s Hospital. 
Editor.—Did he then become interested 
in gyneeolog3r ? 
Dr. S.—Yes. I gave him the freedom 
of the hospital; he was there constantly, 
and he had every opportunity for becoming 
familiar with the methods and manner of 
performing the operations that were peculiar 
to that institution. From this dates his 
reputation as a gynecologist. 
Editor.—What have been the relations 
existing between Dr. Peaslee and yourself? 
Dr. S.—Seemingly friendly. For my- 
self, I have been perfectly friendly to him ; 
but facts have recently come to my knowl- 
edge which prove that he has been, for 
years, an implacable enemy to me. 
Editor.—During your connection with 
the Woman’s Hospital, was there, at any 
time, any want of harmony in the Medical 
Board ? 
Dr. S.—Not at all. Our personal rela- 
tions were very friendly. 
Editor.—When did you receive the first 
intimation of a feeling of enmity against 
you? 
Dr. S.—Between the 12th and 15th of 
January, 1875, about three weeks after I 
was dismissed from the hospital. 
Editor.—Did this intimation come from 
a trustworthy or authoritative source ? 
Dr. S.—Yes ; from one of the Governors 
of the Woman’s Hospital, one who has been 
on the Board since its foundation, and a 
man of the highest character. 
Editor.—In what form was this com- 
municated to you? 
Dr. S.—I can only repeat what I said in 
my pamphlet: “I called on one of the 
Board of Governors, who had been 
one of my best friends, and asked him to 
take a stand to reinstate me, and to my 
great surprise he told me that my associates 
in the Medical Board were opposed to me, 
and desired the Governors to accept my 
resignation ; urging that the best thing for 
the interests of the hospital was to get me 
out of it, as I was a reckless operator and 
was injuring the reputation of the hospital.” 
Editor.—In the pamphlet of your ad- 
versaries there is a labored explanation of ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
157 
the manner in which their circular, dated 
May 5th, became delayed until May 18th, 
the da}’ before your intended departure for 
Europe ; please state the grounds for your 
“suspicions” that this paper was ante- 
dated and intention all}’ delayed. 
Dr. S.—On the 7th of May Dr. Pallen 
read, before the New York County Medical 
Society, an exhaustive paper on Dysmen- 
orrhoea and the Operations for its Cure. 
On this occasion there was a sharp discus- 
sion between Dr. Peaslee and myself, dur- 
which some spicy personalities were in- 
dulged in. After a while there were mutual 
explanations leading to a reconciliation and 
professions of friendly feeling on both sides, 
in which I was certainly sincere. Not so 
Dr. Peaslee, for I soon heard of remarks 
coming from him that showed that he was 
not sincere. After this he and his confreres 
planned their attack on me, ante-dating it 
so as to avoid the suspicion that it origi- 
nated in a feeling of revenge for the affair 
of the 7th of May—a meeting that will not 
soon be forgotten by the members of the 
New York County Medical Society—and 
they delayed the publication of their circu- 
lar, till the night of the 18th of May, inten- 
tionally, knowing that I was going abroad 
the next day for five or six months and 
would not have time to answer them until 
my return in the Fall. 
Editor.—They say, (page 5), “We 
would gladly have consulted Dr. Sims’ 
convenience by preparing our statement 
several weeks earlier, but we saw the bio- 
graphical sketch only in time to issue it 
when we did.” What have you to say to 
this? 
Dr. S.—The biography appeared in the 
January number of the Virginia Medical 
Monthly, 1877, and Mr. Stuart reprinted it 
in the Medical Eclectic on the 15th of March 
following, during my absence at the South, 
inserting the portion reflecting on the moral 
courage of my late colleagues, which I had 
erased from bis original manuscript. I 
returned from the South on the last day of 
March, and in a day or two afterwards I 
heard that the medical atmosphere of New 
York was poisoned with malicious reports 
about me among the doctors, and with 
abuse of me for permitting my biography 
to appear in the Medical Eclectic. Now 
would it not be very odd if all the doctors 
in town had seen this biography in March 
and early in April, and were talking about 
it and were industriously villifying me, and 
yet kept it dark from Drs. Peaslee, Emmet 
and Thomas? How could these three be 
ignorant of these things, when everybody 
else was talking about them. It is evi- 
dently not true that they “ saw the bio- 
graphical sketch only in time to issue it 
(the circular) wThen we (they) did”—i. e., 
on the 18th of May. 
But I happen to have it in my poorer to 
bring this thing a little more vividly to their 
minds. These gentlemen have made the 
mistake of supposing that every country 
doctor was a dupe, and a partizanof theirs, 
who happened co listen politely and patient- 
ly to their misrepresentations of me. In 
several instances physicians from a distance 
have come directly from Peaslee, Emmet 
and Thomas to my house and repeated to 
me the disreputable things said of me by 
them. I can, by associating the visits of a 
tew of them with important operations per- 
formed by me in their presence, fix the very 
time of these slanderous statements. One 
of these was on the 16th of April last. At 
that time I wras told by a distinguished 
doctor from a neighboring city, that the 
New York doctors generally, and Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas in particular, were 
abusing me for allowing my biography to 
be published in a medical journal that be- 
longed to irregulars. But Peaslee, Emmet 
and Thomas pretend to say that they never 
saw this journal till the 18th of May, or at 
the outside, the 5th, when everybody in 
New York knows that they and their satel- 
lites were the men that started the scandal 
in March and magnified it in April. I am 
surprised that they made any attempt to 158 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
excuse themselves on the question of ante- 
dating their circular. But to show you that 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas do not scruple 
to make any statement that suits their pur- 
pose, here is a letter from Mr. Stuart that 
contradicts in toto their statement that the 
biographical sketch came to their notice 
only in time to issue their circular w'hen 
they did, i. e., on the 18th of May: 
I hereby certify, that the Medical Eclec- 
tic, containing reprint of my biographical 
sketch of Dr. Sims, was published on the 
20th of March ; that I left two copies at 
Dr. Emmet’s house, 89 Madison avenue, on 
the 22d of the month, one for Dr. Emmet, 
with a request that it should be handed to 
him, and one for Miss Booth, and that I 
mailed on the same dajr (22d of March) a 
copy to Dr. Thomas and one to Dr. Peaslee, 
prepaying postage on the same. Being de- 
termined that these gentlemen should not be 
ignorant of what I had written, I sent each 
one of them another copy by mail about a 
week after I sent the first. 
H. L. Stuart. 
Aug. 23d, 1877. 
This proves that Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas each had two copies of the biogra- 
phy before the first day of April, and yet 
they have declaimed before the world that 
they saw it onty in time to issue their circu- 
lar when they did on the 18th of May. 
Editor.—Doctors Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas state that you voted affirmatively 
“ on the resolutions excluding cases of ute- 
rine cancer from the hospital, and limiting 
the number of spectators to fifteen at ope- 
rations there,” while in your pamphlet you 
state just as distinctly that you “ did not 
vote at all.” What are the facts in relation 
to this matter? 
Dr. S.—There is a discrepancy in their 
dates and a contradiction in facts in this re- 
lation. There is a direct contradiction be- 
tween the two published accounts of Drs. 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas. For instance, 
in their reply to my pamphlet, page 6, they 
say: 
‘ • Several meetings wrere held upon the 
subject, and on the 12th of January, 1874, 
resolutions were passed by the Medical 
Board requesting the Board of Govern- 
ors to exclude cancer cases from the hos- 
pital, and to limit the number of spectators 
present at any operation to twenty-five. 
Upon these resolutions Dr. Sims voted af- 
firmatively, withdrawing his previous oppo- 
sition to them and seeming, as far as we 
could judge, to be fully in sympathy with 
us in the course which was decided upon.” 
This is a true statement of what occurred 
at that meeting. I was willing to exclude 
cancer cases, and never admitted one after- 
ward. I wras also willing to place a reason- 
able limit upon the number of spectators at 
operations, w'hile I thought that the inter- 
ference of the Board of Governors in this 
matter was wholly unjustifiable. In their 
“ Circular to the Medical Profession,’’ they 
say: 
“In January, 1874, the Board of Gov- 
ernors of the Woman’s Hospital passed the 
two following resolutions: 
1st. That no cases of carcinoma uteri 
should be admitted to the hospital; and, 
2nd. That not more than fifteen specta- 
tors, in addition to the hospital staff, should 
be present at any operation. 
The Medical Board formally discussed 
these rules, and decided unanimously to 
abide by them, as being called for, and 
conducive to the best interests of the pa- 
tients, and of the hospital.” 
By comparing their two statements it will 
be seen that these gentlemen have con- 
founded two meetings, one on the 12th of 
January with one a weeklater. At the first 
meeting the question of admitting cancer 
cases was finally settled, at the latter meet- 
ing the question of cancer did not come up 
at all, the only question before the Medical 
Board being in reference to the admission 
of fifteen spectators at operations instead 
of twenty-five, as agreed to a week before. 
It appears from their pamphlet that the 
Board of Governors rejected the proposition 
of the Medical Board, agreeing to limit the 
number to twenty-five, and demanded that 
we should make the number but fifteen. It 
appears also, from their statement, that they 
adopted the rule of limiting the number to 
fifteen one week after the Board of Gov- ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
159 
ernors had rejected the former proposition 
fixing the number at twenty-five. They say 
that several meetings were held upon the 
subject, but there was one informal meeting 
of which they have made no note, and of 
which they pretend they have no recollec- 
tion, and this was the one which was held 
two or three daj’S after the Board of 
Governors rejected the proposition limit- 
ing the number to twenty-five, and this 
was held. 
Dr. Thomas called this meeting of the 
Medical Board at Dr. Emmet’s house, and 
informed us that the Board of Governors 
had rejected our proposition and demanded 
that we should reduce the number to fifteen. 
We were all disappointed and chagrined at 
this action of the Board of Governors. 
Then it was that Dr. Emmet proposed that 
we should adjourn—which we did in a few 
minutes—to meet again in three or four 
days, and that each of us should come with 
a written opinion as to the course we should 
pursue. I have stated in my pamphlet ex- 
actly what occurred at that meeting, which 
is as follows : 
44At the appointed time and place we 
met. The chairman, Dr. Emmet, calling 
the meeting to order, asked me for my re- 
port. I then read a dignified and manly 
protest against the action of the Board of 
Governors, such as I would not be ashamed 
to publish to-morrow, if it were necessary. 
(There was no formal report made out by 
the other members of the Board). When I 
had finished, Dr. Thomas said : ‘If we take 
the stand you suggest we shall all be turned 
out at once.’ I replied : 4 No, Dr. Thomas, 
the Board of Governors could turn out any 
one of us, but they could not afford to turn 
us all out. They would not dare do it.” 
Dr. Emmet then said: 4 Dr. Sims, take 
care of that document, we may need it to 
fall back on.’ 
I then said, if they did not at once adopt 
my protest, and take the stand, that the 
Board of Governors had no right whatever 
to interfere in matters so strictly belonging 
to the Medical Board, they would never 
have any use in the future for protests. 
A few minutes after this conversation, 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas adopted 
the resolutions as published above* in which 
they sa}-: ‘ Dr. Sims voting affirmatively 
with the undersigned.’ 
I did not vote at* all. True, I did not 
rise, and formally sa}*—4 Mr. Chairman, I 
protest against the adoption of these reso- 
lutions, and I wish it to be so recorded in 
the minutes/ 
These gentlemen know as well as I do, 
that I did not vote at all; that it was im- 
possible for me to vote in the affirmative 
after the protest I had read, and the stand 
I took only a moment before.” 
But Drs.Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas say : 
44 About a week subsequently an informal 
meeting was held for the purpose of arrang- 
ing means for limiting the number of visit- 
ors, as directed by the Board of Governors. 
All the members of the Board were present, 
and after the business was finished, Dr. 
Sims, much to our astonishment, read a 
paper and a series of resolutions which he 
had prepared, and which he characterizes 
as 4 a dignified and manly protest against 
the action of the Board of Governors ’ 
(page 10). These resolutions advocated 
resistance to the wishes of that Board, and 
entirely contradicted the resolutions which 
had been unanimously passed a week be- 
fore. Dr. Sims was at once reminded that 
the resolutions of the past week had been 
put in the hands of the Board of Govern- 
ors ; but, with an inconsistency which is 
almost incredible, he still persisted in 
pressing them. Dr. Emmet asked, 4 Dr. 
Sims, do you wish to reconsider the sub- 
ject?’ 4 No,’ said Dr. Sims. Dr. Thomas 
then said, referring to the Board stultifying 
itself by then contesting what one week 
before it had unanimously recommended, 
4 If we take the stand you suggest, we shall 
all be turned out,’ adding, 4 and we should 
all richly deserve such treatment.’ The 
remark imputed to Dr. Emmet, 4 Dr. Sims, 
take care of that document, we may need 
it to fall back on,’ and Dr. Sims’ reply to 
Dr. Thomas, are the offspring of a wonder- 
fully prolific, but unfortunately distempered 
imagination. There had been no under- 
standing at the previous meeting that writ- 
ten opinions should be presented at this 
meeting ; for we considered the whole sub- 
ject as then finally disposed of.” 
It is very strange that Drs. Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas have all forgotten the 
informal meeting at Dr. Emmet’s house, 
which occurred between the meeting of the 160 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
12th of January, at which ice adopted the 
number of twenty-five visitors to Opera- 
tions, and the one a week later, when, at 
the dictation of the Governors, they were 
compelled to adopt the number of fifteen. 
At the first meeting the cancer question wras 
settled, because we agreed to admit no more 
cases of cancer. At the meeting a week 
later the only question before us was simply 
the adoption of fifteen instead of twenty- 
five spectators. But Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas say that the cancer question was 
before the Medical Board at each of those 
meetings. Now this is out of the question. 
By their own statements they are mistaken, 
and I hope honestly so. But as they made 
the mistake in their first hurried publication 
of saying that I voted for the proposition 
limiting the number of spectators to fifteen, 
they seem to think they ought to stick to it 
now; and to get over their dilemma they 
conveniently forget the intermediate ten- 
minute, adjourned meeting that occurred 
between the 12tli and the 19th of January. 
They also forget that we were to return at 
a given day, each with a written opinion. 
They forget that I was called on the mo- 
ment the meeting -was organized to read my 
report, and they are guilty of making me 
vote for the proposition of fifteen, and in- 
stantly afterwards of rising and reading a 
protest, that had been prepared with great 
care, against the vote they say I gave. 
Nowq so far as Peaslee is concerned, he 
may possibly have forgotten some of these 
points, if not all of them, for, like myself, 
lie is an antique, but as to Emmet and 
Thomas, I cannot have the same charity. 
They are young, and it is simply impossible 
that they could have forgotten all these 
things. They are guilty of deliberately 
misrepresenting the facts. 
They say (page 7), “The remark im- 
puted to Dr. Emmet, ‘ Dr. Sims, take care 
of that document, we may need it to fall 
back on,’ and Dr. Sims’ reply to Dr. 
Thomas, are the offspring of a wonderfully 
prolific, but unfortunately distempered im- 
agination.” The prolific and distempered 
imagination and moral constitution belong 
alone to Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas. 
They persistently refuse to remember dates, 
and times and circumstances, and say only 
what suits their purposes without any special 
regard for the facts of the case. Theirs and 
theirs alone is “ a wonderfully prolific, but 
unfortunately distempered imagination.” 
Eeitok.—Dr. Sims, what about the an- 
nual report that was submitted for your 
approval ? 
Dr. S.—Dr. Thomas’ statement of com- 
ing to my house after gas-light and reading 
the report to me is correct. But at the 
time my mind was greatly preoccupied with 
two dangerously-ill patients (one of them 
died that night). I listened politely to the 
Doctor, but wras thinking of something else 
all the time, and the reading made no per- 
manent impression on my mind. I am not 
afraid of acknowledging the truth, and I 
am sorry that Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas cannot do the same. 
Editor.—What have you to say about 
Mr. Geo. T. M. Davis’ long letter to the 
members of the Medical Board about using 
their influence with him to put you out of 
the hospital? 
Dr. S.—Mr. Davis, personally, did not 
need to be influenced. I said they furn- 
ished him with the statistics of the opera- 
tions done at the hospital, and according to 
his and their account they did. Why did 
Mr. Davis wish the statistics? How did 
he know what they were? Would he have 
asked for them if he had not been informed 
that the}’ were supposed to be injurious to 
me ? If the statistics had shown that I had 
lost but five or six patients out of two hun- 
dred and fifteen, would he have had any 
use for them? He was informed of the 
nature of the statistics and what use might 
be made of them by these very men. 
They alone knew the statistics of the hos- 
pital. If they had not thought Mr. Davis 
could have used them to my prejudice he 
never would have asked for them. He did ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
161 
ask for them—they did give them, and he 
did flourish them before the Board of Gov- 
ernors, and it is a matter of no importance 
at which meeting of the Board of Governors 
this was done. This shows the animus of 
the doctors who suggested the thing to Mr. 
Davis. Mr. Davis says he applied for them 
in his official capacity, but when he used 
them in the Board, I have heard (from 
one of the Governors present) he refused 
to let any one examine them, saying they 
were private. But this is a matter of no 
consequence. They w'ere furnished by the 
Medical Board, and they were used in the 
Board of Governors, and I repeat, that one 
of the Governors told me, that my associ- 
ates in the Medical Board were opposed 
to me and wdshed to get me out of it, 
and “ desired the Governors to accept my 
resignation,” urging that it was the best 
thing for the interests of the hospital, as I 
was a reckless operator. The question at 
issue, is, did Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas influence any of the members of 
the Board of Governors to accept my resig- 
nation? Did they use influences against 
me at the time they were pretending to 
me to be friendly to me and in favor of 
my continuing with them in the Medical 
Board? I dare them to raise an issue in 
court or by arbitration with power to send 
for papers and persons, and I will, by put- 
ting the Governors and the Lady Managers 
on oath, prove very quickly what was their 
animus, their action and their real influence 
with the Governors on the question at 
issue. 
Mr. Davis is simply co-conspirator with 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas, and his testi- 
mony is only that of an accomplice. 
Editor.—Are the statistics quoted in 
your pamphlet the same as those made use 
of by Mr. Davis at the meeting of the 
Board of Governors? If so, how did you 
become aware of that fact ? 
Dr. S.—Mr. Davis says (page 10) in his 
letter, “I applied, in my official capacity 
as one of the Governors, to both Dr. 
Thomas, as the Secretary, and to Dr. Em- 
met, as the Chairman of the Medical Board, 
for the information I desired, propounding 
in writing, such questions as I deemed es- 
sential to elicit the facts I was in quest of.” 
In plain English, Mr. Davis asked these 
gentlemen for the statistics of the hospital. 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas say 
(page 12), “ that Dr. Sims was full}’aware 
of the fact that these statistics were neither 
prepared, nor presented by the Medical 
Board, that they were entirely incorrect.” 
And in comparing the table of statistics 
used by Mr. Davis with that used in my 
pamphlet, they say in a note (page 11) : 
*‘The above is not Col. Davis’ table, but 
Dr. Sims’; the two do not agree.” 
Dr. Whitwell was Senior House Surgeon 
at the Woman’s Hospital, from October, 
1874, to March, 1875. Soon after he left 
the hospital, he told me that Dr. Emmet 
had, in January, handed him a letter from 
Mr. Davis, written to Dr. Emmet, asking 
him for the statistics of all operations per- 
formed in the hospital by all the surgeons 
during the time that I was connected with 
the institution. That he, with the two 
other House Surgeons, Dr. DuBois and Dr. 
Pray, set to work, looked over the books, 
and in due time made out the table and 
handed it to Dr. Emmet for Mr. Davis. I 
asked him if he had a copy of the table he 
had made out; he replied, yes. I then 
asked him to furnish me with one, and he 
did, and this was the table I used in my 
paper, which Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas now say is not the same as that 
used by Mr. Davis. On Wednesday, August 
2d, only a fortnight ago, I met Dr. Whitwell 
in San Francisco, and I asked him if the 
table of statistics he furnished me in 1875 
was an exact copy of that he made out for 
Dr. Emmet in answer to Mr. Davis’ letter, 
and he said it was. And to-day (August 
16th) I received a telegram from him at 
San Francisco, in answer to one sent yes- 
terday, reiterating the fact that the Davis 
table of statistics and mine were identical. 162 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
How then can Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas say, “ the above is not Col. Davis’ 
table, but Dr. Sims’; the two do not 
agree ?” 
But let me call Mr. Davis to the stand. 
Mr. Davis, in his voluminous letter to 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas (page 10), 
says: 
“At the January meeting, 1875, of the 
Board of Governors, a month after Dr. 
Sims had ceased to be a surgeon to the 
Woman’s Hospital, the statistics that he 
alleged were used ‘ to put me (him) out ’ 
were for the first time brought to the notice 
or knowledge of the Board of Governors, 
and while the nomination of Dr. Barker 
was under consideration.” 
Thus it will be seen that Mr. Davis fully 
acknowledges that his table and mine were 
the same, when he says the statistics that I 
alleged were used “to put me out,” were 
for the first time brought to the notice of the 
Board of Governors by him a month after I 
had been put out. 
This shows that Drs. Peaslee, Emmet 
and Thomas neglected to give their voluteer 
witness, Mr. Davis, the proper cue on this 
point. 
Editor.—In what does the table of sta- 
tistics in your pamphlet differ from that put 
forth by Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas? 
Dr. S.—In my pamphlet the statistics as 
furnished by Dr. Whitwell to both Mr. 
Davis and myself, were from 1st of May, 
1872, to 22d of December, 1874. But 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas have made 
out their satistical table from April, 
1872, to January, 1875, covering a period 
of thirty-nine days when I was not con- 
nected with the hospital. They might, 
with the same propriety, have added a 
month or two more to have suited their 
•own purposes. All this squabbling and 
•quibbling over statistics is too absurd. 
But as they intended them less for the pro- 
fession than the public, it suits their pur- 
poses. Mr. Davis applied to Dr. Thomas 
and Dr. Emmet for these statistics. Dr. 
Emmet, through his House Surgeon, Dr. 
Whitwell, furnished them to Mr. Davis, 
although Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas 
now say (page 8), “We had no more 
agenc}' in obtaining these statistics ” than 
Dr. Sims himself.” 
Now let us see how these gentlemen 
manipulate statistics to suit their own ends : 
1st. Dr. Whitwell goes over the Hospital 
Records in January, 1875, and says I per- 
formed 215 operations during my connec- 
tion with the hospital. 
2nd. Dr. Hunter, Dr. Clarke and Dr. 
Dudle}" go over the same hospital records in 
January, 1877, and certify that I performed 
but 152 operations during this time, and 
then Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas 
make another deduction, reducing my opera- 
tions at last from 215 to 88 !!! 
Now how was it possible for these gen- 
tlemen to have reduced the sum of 215 to 
88? Let us see: Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas, with their aids, Hunter, Clarke 
and Dudley, put their heads together to see 
how they could destroy the validity of 
Whitwell’s table as furnished to Davis. 
They all fell upon the plan of throwing out 
the 64 operations performed by me for dys- 
menorrhoea. Of course I do not accuse 
Hunter, Clarke and Dudley of altering the 
books, but they simply carried out the 
wishes of their masters by making the de- 
duction of 64, as it was already agreed to 
do. But here the}", in their hurry, evidently 
made a mistake of 1 in their subtraction. 
And then, passing their new table, thus 
altered from 215 to 152, over to Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas, the latter feeling not 
quite satisfied, determined to make assur- 
ance doubly sure, proceeded forthwith to 
abstract another 64 ! ! ! generously leaving 
88 as the whole number of operations per- 
formed by me instead of 215, as the books 
really show. All this goes to prove that 
Whitwell’s table was absolutely con-ect, for 
by adding the double deductions, made by 
the two parties that manipulated the tables, 
to the sum 88, which they say is the correct 
number, it corresponds exactly with Whit- ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
163 
well’s table, minus 1, which they lost in 
their repeated abstractions. 
I performed, during my connection with 
the hospital: 
According to Dr. Whitwell, 215 operations. 
“ Dr. Hunter & Co. 152 “ 
63 
How could Dr. • Whitwell, Dr. DuBois 
•and Dr. Pray possibly have made such a 
blunder as to accredit me with 63 opera- 
tions that I never performed. 
This is the explanation : 
At the dictation of Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas, their assistants go to work ex- 
pressly to make a table that shall differ 
from Wliitwell’s. Having finished their 
work, they accompany it with the following 
certificate : 
“We certify that the above statistics are 
taken from the record books of the WOman’s 
Hospital, and are correct to the best of our 
knowledge and belief. 
(Signed.) James B. Hunter, M. D., 
Asst. Surg. N. Y. State Woman's Hospital. 
A. S. Clarke, M. D., 
House Surg. N. Y. State Woman's Hospital. 
E. C. Dudley, M. D., 
Senior Asst. House Surg. N. Y. State 
Woman's Hospital." 
Such “bull-dozing” of statistics was never 
heard of before in the annals of medicine. 
Editor.—Upon what grounds did Peas- 
lee, Emmet and Thomas exclude the 64 
operations tyou performed for dysmenorrhcea 
(magnifying them to 127). 
Dr. S.—They quoted my book on Uterine 
Surgery to show that it was not a serious 
operation. In my hands it is not; but 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas know very 
well that it is regarded all over the world 
by the profession at large as a very serious 
operation, and occasionally it is attended 
with fatal results. Only yesterday, Dr. 
Louis Bauer, of your city, informed me 
that some years ago, in 1867 or ’68, he took 
a patient, a lady from Montreal, to Dr. 
Emmet, at the Woman’s Hospital, who was 
a great sufferer from dysmenorrhcea, that 
Dr. Emmet performed my operation of pos- 
terior section of the cervix uteri, and that 
the patient"1 died in consequence of the 
operation. 
This shows that the operation is a serious 
one, even in hands so skillful as Dr. Em- 
met’s ; and it is well known that Dr. 
Emmet performs this operation less fre- 
quently now than he formerly did. The 
statistical table made up for this occasion 
by Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas, so ably 
assisted by their aids, Drs. Hunter, Clarke 
and Dudley, show negatively, that Dr. Em- 
met performed this operation only four 
times, from April, 1872, to January, 1875 ; 
Dr. Peaslee eighteen times, and Dr. Thomas 
twenty, while they say I performed the ope- 
ration sixty-four times in the same period. 
But Dr. Thomas does not, I believe, perform 
the operation as often as he formerly did, 
because he does not regard it as so safe 
as he formerly did. And as to Dr. Peas- 
lee, his method of operating justifies the 
exclusion of all his cases, for his per- 
formance is not to be dignified by the name 
operation. 
Editor.—The following paragraph (page 
15) occurs in the pamphlet of Drs. Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas : “ Dr. Sims declares 
that one of the Board of Governors asserted 
to him that his associates in the Medical 
Board were opposed to him, and desired 
the Governors to accept his resignation. 
We never gave the least foundation for any 
such statement, and Dr. Sims should not 
have listened to it, if it really were made 
to him, knowing, as he did, that some of 
his colleagues were at that very time, to 
their own detriment, endeavoring as indi- 
viduals to prevent the acceptance of his 
resignation.” What explanation have you 
to make of this? 
Dr. s.—As I have already stated, I 
thought my colleagues were true to me till 
I was told to the contrary by one of the 
oldest and truest of the Hospital Govern- 
ors, and it is impossible for him to prevari- 
cate. They say I knew that some of my 
“ colleagues were, at that ver}r time, to 
their own detriment, endeavoring as indi- 164 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
viduals to prevent the acceptance of his 
resignation.” 
Dr. Thomas repeatedly told me he was 
doing his best with the Governors to pre- 
vent the acceptance of my resignation, and 
I was simple enough to believe him, and 
honestly believed him till one of the Gov- 
ernors, whom I wished to move to reinstate 
me, “told me that my associates in the 
Medical Board were opposed to me, and 
desired the Governors to accept my resigna- 
tion, urging that the best thing for the 
interests of the hospital was to get me out 
of it, as I was a reckless operator, and was 
injuring the reputation of the hospital.” 
Dr. Thomas told me, after they got me out 
of the hospital, that he had used great 
exertion to keep me in, that men were un- 
grateful, and that the time would come when 
I would doubtless abuse him for his efforts to 
serve me!! 
The Doctor, at that time, knew" better 
than any one else how he had pulled his 
wires, but I did not understand him at the 
time. Of course it is easy enough to 
understand him now. There was one mem- 
ber, and but one member of the Board of 
Governors oyer whom Dr. Thomas w"as 
supposed to have any influence, and he ex- 
erted it so successfully that this member 
wras second only to Mr. Davis in his violent 
denunciations of me at the boisterous meet- 
ing of the Governors, in December, at 
which I wras put out of the hospital. So 
much for Dr. Thomas’ efforts, “ to his own 
detriment,” to prevent the acceptance of my 
resignation. 
Editor.—They say “Dr. Sims’ apology 
was not read'to the Medical Board.” How 
is this? 
Dr. S.—I did not present it to the Medi- 
cal Board as a Board, but I read it to each 
one of them, and here are the facts : 
After writing my resignation, I presented 
it to Dr. Thomas for his criticism, indeed it 
was matter of grave consultation between 
us, whether it could be improved without 
sacrifice of truth and honor; and he said 
it was all right. In a few clays after this 
the Medical Board met at the hospital. 
It was the last meeting I attended. Dr. 
Emmet and myself were the first to enter 
the committee room, and there I read it to 
Dr. Emmet, and he expressed to me the 
hope that my resignation would not be 
accepted. Soon after, Dr. Thomas entered 
the room, and as we three formed a quorum, 
w-e organized and proceeded to business. 
After a little, Dr. Peaslee came in, and 
when the Board adjourned, I stopped Dr. 
Peaslee, as we wrere going from the com- 
mittee room into the hall, and read the 
document to him, for I was determined that 
they should all see it, and the facts are 
precisely as I have here detailed them. 
I am charitable enough to Dr. Peaslee to 
believe, on account of his age, that he has 
no recollection of it; but this charity does 
not extend to Emmet and Thomas. 
Editor.—From these facts it appears 
that these gentlemen have the happy faculty 
of presenting falsehood in the garb of truth? 
Dr. S.—Yes, and of presenting truth in 
a false light. This is in keeping with their 
policy on ever}" point at issue between us. 
They seem to think there was a letter of 
resignation, and a note of apology ; but the 
only communication I made to the Govern- 
ors was the following: 
Gentlemen:— 
Having said at the annual meeting that I 
would send in my resignation as Surgeon to 
the Woman’s Hospital, I feel in honor 
bound to do so. 
In taking leave of your honorable body, 
allow me to say that I feel great regret at 
having said aught to mar the harmony of 
the anniversary meeting, and I further re- 
gret that I seized that time and occasion to 
lay my views before you. 
(Signed.) J. Marion Sims. 
Editor.—They say the}" could not, as a 
Board, protest against the acceptance of 
your resignation because you, in your 
speech, said you wrould resign “ unless the 
two rules were rescinded at their next meet- 
ing.” Is this correct? 
Dr. S.—Mr. Davis, as a~co-conspirator ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
165 
with Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas, makes, 
with them, the same mistakes in reporting 
my speech. It would be odd if theyr did 
not all agree on this and every other point 
at issue. 
Mr. Davis says (page 9) : 
Dr. Sims concluded his attack upon the 
Board of Governors with a vehement threat 
that unless the Board, at its next regular 
meeting, repealed the two resolutions, above 
referred to, his resignation was at their 
disposal.” 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas also say 
that I threatened to resign, “ xmless the 
two rules were rescinded at their next meet- 
ing.” These gentlemen write from impres- 
sions made on their minds in November, 
1874. When I saw the efiect of my speech 
on my hearers, I wrote it out a day or two 
afterwards (November 21st, 1874) and 
wrote it as literally as I possibly could. 
The probabilities would be greatly in favor 
<of my report being more correct than that 
of the conspirators. But I will prove out 
of their own mouths that I am right: 
Davis, and Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas 
all unite in saying that I would resign 
unless the Board of Governors rescinded 
their resolutions. If they are right, then I 
ought to have waited for the next regular 
meeting of the Board of Governors to see 
whether they would rescind or adhere to 
them. But I did not wait. I sent the res- 
ignation to the first meeting of the Board of 
Governors held after the annual meeting at 
which I made the speech. This is as nearly 
verbatim what I said as it is possible for anyr 
one to have made it: 
‘ ‘ Sir, such an act as this is unworthy’ of 
the Board of Governors from which it ema- 
nates. For myself, I have never heeded 
your edict, and never will; and if you are 
aggrieved at this, you can have my resigna- 
tion at your next meeting, if you wish it.” 
Having said this on the impulse of the 
moment, I felt in honor bound to send in 
my’ resignation at once, hoping my associ- 
ates would be able to prevent its accept- 
ance, as they made me believe they would. 
But if I had made my resignation contin- 
gent upon the action of the Board of Gov- 
ernors at their next meeting, I would, 
logically, have waited to see whether they 
would rescind or enforce resolutions already 
in force. 
Editor.—But these gentlemen state that, 
‘ ‘ After the first meeting of the Board had 
passed without repeal of the resolutions, 
Dr. Sims was bound by his word of promise 
to send in his resignation.” How does this 
correspond with the facts as they occurred? 
Dr. S.—Doctors Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas have no regard whatever for dates. 
They seem to jump at what they wish, 
whether consistent with facts or not. 
The anniversary meeting was held at the 
Woman’s Hospital on the 19th of Novem- 
ber, 1874. The next meeting of the Board 
of Governors was held a few days before 
the 22nd day of December following, for 
it was on that da}’ that I received notice of 
the acceptance of my resignation, and that 
day terminated my connection with the 
Woman’s Hospital. 
They have simply manufactured my 
threat, and then they have chosen to mould 
my action to suit, i. e., they say “ the first 
meeting of the Board was passed without 
the repeal of the resolutions,” and after this 
I sent in my resignation. According to 
this, the December meeting passed quietly ; 
there was no action of the Board of Gov- 
ernors one way or the other !!! therefore I 
must, according to their account, have sent 
in my resignation at the next regular meet- 
ing, which would have been in January; 
but I went out of the hospital on the 22d of 
December, and on the 12th of January I 
wrote to Mr. Davis, asking to be reinstated 
at their approaching January meeting. 
These are the facts of the case, which 
will be further established by Mr. Davis 
himself, for he says, “ at the next regular 
meeting of the Board, to be holden on the 
second Tuesday in January, 1875, it would 
be called upon to act upon the nomination of 
Dr. Barker as the successor of Dr. Sims.” 
According to Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and 166 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
Thomas, my resignation was accepted at 
the second meeting of the Board of Gov- 
ernors held after the annual meeting'of the 
19th of November, 1874, that is, at the 
January meeting, 1875. But according to 
Mr. Davis, the co-conspirator, this meeting 
on the second Tuesday in January was 
taken up with “ the nomination of Dr. Bar- 
ker as the successor of Dr. Sims.” Mr. 
Davis is right—the others wrong. 
Editor.—They complain that your 
speech, as reported in your pamphlet is 
not a verbatim report. Was it or not? 
Dr. S.—I said in my pamphlet very 
nearly verbatim. The speech was written 
out hurriedly, within about forty-eight hours 
after its delivery, and it is as near a verba- 
tim report as I could make it. I left out 
the matter about the title to the land on 
which the hospital stands, which depends 
upon our giving twenty-five free beds to the 
city as a consideration for the land, and how 
it was that I said the Lady Managers had 
no right to say what patients should be ad- 
mitted and what should not be admitted. 
Editor.—They also complain that you 
did not publish the complimentary things 
you said of them in your speech? 
Dr. S.—And they affect to believe that 
what I said of them was “ in irony.” I 
was never more in earnest in all my life, 
and they know this very well. But I have 
no objection to give you my views about 
these gentlemen. Many hospitals can boast 
of one or two great names, but no other 
hospital in the world can boast of three 
such men as Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas. 
Peaslee is the author of the best monograph 
in any language on any subject. I would 
rather be the author of his book on Ovarian 
Tumors than of any other book that our 
medical literature has produced. Emmet 
has operated more frequently for vesico- 
vaginal fistula than any man living. He 
operates with great dexterity and success. 
He performs my operation now just as I 
taught him twenty-two years ago, and I 
very naturally feel proud of my pupil. His 
operation for lacerated cervix uteri will give 
him immortal fame even if he should never 
contribute another thing to the progress of 
gynecology. Thomas is one of the most 
eloquent teachers that IS, ew York has ever 
produced. He, like Peaslee, is learned, 
classical and scholarly. He is the author 
of one of the best books ever written on 
the Diseases of Women, and as a practi- 
tioner he has no superior. 
I shall soon go to Paris, expressly to 
write a new edition of m37 book. I have 
promised the profession that this contro- 
versy shall not in the least prevent me from 
doing ample justice in my book to the 
labors of these gentlemen. Time will show 
whether the}7 are equall}' just to me in their 
future works. Dr. Thomas is the only 
author who has heretofore done ample jus- 
tice to m}T discoveries and inventions. 
Editor.—They complain that the tone 
and st}’le of your written speech are not as 
you delivered it. 
Dr. S.—Tone and style can not be set 
up in type. I think the same speech would 
sound very differently if delivered by 
Peaslee, Emmet or Thomas. It would be 
interesting to compare the tone and sjyle- 
of these men, one with the other. 
Editor.—Did you invite strangers to 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas’ opera- 
tions at the hospital contrary to their known 
wishes ? 
Dr. S.—The}7 wish to make it appear 
that I was in the habit of filling their ope- 
rating rooms with strangers, contrary to 
their known wishes. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. I remember one 
occasion, and but one, when I said to gen- 
tlemen present on my operating day, that 
Dr. Thomas would doubtless be glad to see 
them on the following Saturday at an ovari- 
otomy, and I may possibly have said the 
same thing of Dr. Peaslbe, but this was all. 
Editor.—They say you “ had put an 
advanced cancer case into one of our beds, 
in order, we must believe, to make it ap- 
pear to the Governors that we were united. ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
167 
with, him in setting at defiance rules of 
which he knew we approved as being neces- 
sary.” What are the facts ? 
Dr. S.—I always - found Peaslee and 
Emmet willing to lend me a bed for a 
patient when they had vacant ones. I now 
and then loaned beds to them. We were 
always willing to oblige each other. I 
never knew any one to take a bed without 
asking for it, and I was never refused by 
either of them when I asked the loan of a 
bed. I do not remember ever having asked 
Dr. Thomas for one. 
In the fall of 1872 several cancer cases 
were admitted to the hospital. On the 7th 
of December, 1872, Dr. Thomas admitted 
“ an advanced cancer case,” which he 
begged me to operate on for him. I agreed 
to do it. Saturday was his operating day, 
Monday mine, and I was to have operated 
on his case the Monday following the day 
Dr. Thomas admitted her. Unfortunately I 
was called to Saratoga the next day, was 
absent all day Monday, my operating day, 
and did not return till Tuesday. Got home 
very unwell; was not able to get out for 
several days, and when I at last went to 
the hospital, I found Dr. Thomas’ “ad- 
vanced cancer case” far advanced into a 
sloughing which produced a fearful stench, 
poisoning the air of the ward. Some pa- 
tients were about to leave, or had left the 
hospital in consequence of this, and the 
Lady Managers very naturally made a great 
row about it, and this case'of Dr. Thomas’ 
was the beginning and the sole cause of all 
the trouble about the question of admitting 
cancer cases into the hospital. And yet, 
Dr. Thomas, you have the effrontery to 
stand up and say to the world that I put an 
advanced cancer case into one of your beds 
in order, you believe, to make it appear to 
the Governors that you were united with 
me in setting at defiance rules of which I 
knew you approved as being necessary. 
Now Sir, up to this moment there were no 
rules about it. We all admitted cancer 
cases, and there were “none to make us 
afraid.” No one thought of rules, or of 
excluding cancer cases till you admitted 
this case and asked me to operate on it for 
you, saying you wished to see my method 
of operating. I will not say that you gave 
me your ‘ ‘ advanced cancer case ” for a 
malicious purpose, but the sequel might be 
so construed by any one of a more suspi- 
cious nature. 
From the time Dr. Thomas admitted this 
“advanced cancer case,” which was the 
beginning of all our trouble with the Board 
of Lad}' Managers, there were no more ad- 
mitted to my wards till the 15tli of May 
following, and from that date till the 23d of 
June there were five admitted. The house 
surgeon in charge of my wards (and Dr. 
Emmet’s) did not wish to be troubled with 
such cases, and refused to admit them. 
But when Dr. Wylie 'took charge of our 
wards, in the spring of ’73, he spoke to the 
Lady Managers on the subject and told 
them that many incipient cancer cases pre- 
sented themselves for admission, and he 
thought they should be admitted, for the 
reason that they could be treated, and re- 
lieved temporarily, without any detriment 
or annoyance to the other patients. The 
Board of Lady Managers listened to his 
advice and allowed him to admit such cases 
at his discretion. And this accounts for 
the fact of the sudden appearance of these 
cases ’in our wards after their exclusion for 
four months by Dr. Wylie’s predecessor. 
Dr. Thomas was, I believe, the first to profit 
by his kind interference with the Boaid of 
Lady Managers, for he operated on the first 
case that was admitted by Dr. Wylie. My 
first case came in on the 15tli of May, the 
second on the 18th, the other three in June. 
If I remember rightly Peaslee operated on 
a case about the same time. I bring for- 
ward these facts to show you that Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas have written at random 
when they say that I “put an advanced 
cancer case into one of our beds, in order, 
we must believe, to make it appear to the 
Governors that we were united with him in 168 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
setting at defiance rules of which he knew 
we approved as being necessary.” The3' 
admitted cancer cases and operated on 
them at the same time I did, and now they 
pretend that they did not. Their whole 
pamphlet is a mixture of misrepresentations 
•of dates and facts. 
Editor.—Dr. Sims, the explanations 3'ou 
have given on the points at issue between 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and yourself, are 
most satisfactory to me, and I am sure the3T 
will prove so to the profession at large. 
Dr. S.—Sir, such quibbling, such pre- 
varication, such perversion of facts, such 
•evasion of truth, as these men have conde- 
scended to put forth in their scurrilous 
pamphlet, would well become a third-rate 
pettifogger (3’clept in New York a sh3rster), 
but is wholly beneath the dignity of the 
true physician, who is ever the high-toned, 
honorable man. I regret this whole affair 
most sincerefy, and the time is not far 
distant when Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas 
will regret it too. This unfortunate con- 
troversy is a disgrace to medicine, a dis- 
grace to the county, a disgrace to the age. 
Although local, and of a personal character, 
it touches the honor of the whole profession, 
and its influence will be felt in and on the 
profession for a long time to come. These 
men clandestinefy' persecuted me in a shame- 
less manner long before Mr. Stuart (unfor- 
tunately) said “ the3'were invisible in the 
hour of conflict,” between me and the Gov- 
ernors. Their wanton attack made on me 
just on the eve of m37 departure for Europe 
was an outrage on propriet37. The profes- 
sion have seen their circular letter; the3r 
have read m37 reply; they have read their 
pamphlet; and now they have m37 explana- 
tion in rebuttal. Thus, we appeal to the 
profession. Let the profession speak. If 
these men are sustained in their truckling 
s37cophanc37 to the Board of Governors and 
Lad3’ Managers of the Woman’s Hospital; 
if they are sustained in their clandestine 
persecution of me ; if the3’ are sustained in 
the publication of their circular; if the37 
are sustained in the scurrilous pamphlet 
they have published—then has my life of 
honor and probity been in vain ; then have 
I fruitlessly given more than forty years to 
the elevation and advancement of medicine ; 
then have I generously but foolishly thrown 
open to the world the discoveries and in- 
ventions I have made for the amelioration 
of human suffering; discoveries and inven- 
tions that culminated in building up a great 
hospital and in establishing great principles 
of treatment, all of which tended more for 
the benefit of these three men than for any 
other three now living. 
Editor.—Why don’t you start another 
hospital in New York? 
Dr. S.—What; in opposition to the 
Woman’s Hospital? Never. I have re- 
ceived many letters from medical gentlemen 
all over the country asking me to do this, 
and proffering support; but I have no 
quarrel with the Woman’s Hospital. My 
leaving the hospital has not in the least 
changed my feelings toward it, nor altered 
m3' interest in its success. I send patients 
to it just as if its management had done 
justice by me. The hospital is the offspring 
of my brain and of my labor. Securing 
the title to the land on which it stands was 
the hardest work of my life. When that 
was done the rest was easy. 
I would no more do aught to injure the 
hospital than I would to injure one of my 
own children if he should prove ungrateful 
to me. 
Editor.—Dr. Sims, }tou told me 3'ester- 
day that Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas’ un- 
generous attack on the eve of your departure 
for Europe had inflicted great loss on you. 
How is this ? 
Dr. S.—They have caused me the greatest 
amount of annoyance and mortification. 
This will doubtless gratify them, and it may 
gratify them still more to know that they 
have succeeded in disarranging all m3’ plans 
for the next two 3'ears with great loss to me. 
I have for a long time wished to write a new 
edition of my book On Uterine Surgery, but ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
169 
I have been too constantly occupied with 
practice in New York to devote any time to 
this. Last June, I made up my mind to go 
to Paris in May and remain there till Novem- 
ber for this purpose, and to do the same 
thing next year. This would have given 
me six months in Paris and six months at 
home. By this plan I expected to do the 
literary work that I am anxious to do while 
I feel intellectually vigorous. But being 
now detained here all summer by this affair, 
all my plans for the future are disarranged, 
and I shall now be compelled to remain in 
Paris during the winter, and devote myself 
to the work I had laid out to do during the 
summer and fall. As my son, Dr. Harry 
Sims, has removed from New York to San 
Francisco, there is no longer a necessity for 
my doing the drudgery that I felt called 
upon to do for the last six or eight years. 
I am now free to go and come when I 
please, and I hope to take the world easier 
now than I have heretofore. 
Editor.—There are many other con- 
temptible little allegations in the pamphlet 
of Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas that you 
could doubtless answer, but it is hardly 
necessary to itemize them ? 
Dr. S.—Yes; they have said many7 
things, collectively, that neither of them, 
individually, would dare to say. It is a 
curious fact that corporations, daily’, do 
dishonest things, from which their indi- 
vidual members would shrink. Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas form just such a cor- 
poration de facto if not de jure. They 
allege many things against me that not one 
of them individually’ can truthfully affirm. 
For instance, they say, “that from the 
moment of his connection with the hospital, 
he disregarded all the rules, whether passed 
by the Board of Governors, or the Medical 
Board even with his own concurrence.” 
This is a most sweeping declaration, and, 
like many others made byr them, is without 
foundation. Let us see what the real truth 
is. We all entered on duty at the Woman’s 
Hospital, May 1st, 1872. Dr. Emmet 
looked upon Peaslee, Thomas and myself 
as intruders, and did not pretend to dis- 
guise his feelings. In taking charge of the 
beds allotted to us, we refused to interfere 
between Dr. Emmet and his patients, many 
of them having been long under his care, 
we allowed him to retain charge of them, 
and we treated him otherwise with such 
kindness and consideration, that he was 
disarmed of his hostlity, and we soon be- 
came a unit on all questions affecting the 
interests of the hospital, and so we re- 
mained for the two years and a half that I 
was on the Medical Board with them until 
I made the spe< ch at the anniversary meet- 
ing, 19th of November, 1874. On the 24th 
of January, 1874, there was simply a dif- 
ference of opinion between us, but it in 
nowise disturbed our harmony. I never 
disobeyed, in a solitary instance, any rule 
adopted by the Medical Board, and never 
disobeyed any adopted by the Board of 
Governors, except by7 occasionally inviting 
one or two medical friends to go to the 
hospital on my operating day. When I did 
this I walked with them up to the operating 
room without asking permission of the 
engineer, who had been placed in the hall 
to register and report the number of visitors 
at operations. And this is the head and 
front of my offending, and this is the only 
way in which I ever disobeyed any rule, 
and then only to this trifling extent. I did 
not respect the rule reducing the number of 
visitors to fifteen, but I never over crowded 
the operating room with visitors after it 
was forbidden to do so by the Governors, nor 
did I do it before it was forbidden. But 
in their pamphlet, Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas have labored to produce this im- 
pression. The overcrowding was inaugu- 
rated by Thomas and Peaslee, who invited 
gentlemen from their classes to come to the 
hospital. Emmet and myself having no 
classes, had nothing to do with it, and yet 
they say that I ‘ ‘ habitually overcrowded 
the operating room,” when the real truth is, 
that during the whole time I was connected 170 
ST. LOUIS CLINICAL BECOBD. 
with the hospital I never, on any occasion, 
invited more than two or three gentlemen 
at one time to go with me to the hospital. 
Editor.—Whatever your present plans 
may be, I hope you will have no further 
annoyance with this controversy. This will 
certainly end it, and you need not fear the 
verdict of your professional brethren. 
Dr. Sims declining to give us any informa- 
tion regarding “ Col.” Davis, the principal 
witness of the conspirators, we wrote the fol- 
lowing questions to Mr. H. L. Stuart, of New 
York, and received the subjoined replies : 
Ques.—Who, and what is Mr. G. T. M. 
Davis ? 
Ans.—He and his son made some money 
out of “Credit Mobilier” and Union Pacific 
Railroad matters, and his daughter, Mrs. 
George Francis Train, by aid of T. C. 
Durant, of Union Pacific Railroad fame, is 
also said to be wealthy, as a result of opera- 
tions in Union Pacific ! 
Ques.—Is it a fact that the Board of 
Governors and the Board of Lady Managers 
were and are unanimous in their opposition 
to Dr. Sims remaining in the hospital ? 
Ans.—It is not. The majority of the 
older and more reputable members of both 
boards sustain Dr. Sims and are opposed to 
the course of Mr. Davis and his crowd. 
Among those who support him are Hon. 
Erastus C. Renedict, who has done more 
than any other member of the Board of 
Governors to aid Dr. Sims in founding and 
establishing the hospital, Hon. A. R. Wet- 
more, Peter Cooper, and others of like high 
character and standing; also Mrs. Wm. B. 
Stridmore, Mrs. John Jacob Astor, and 
ladies of like character and social standing 
in the Board of Lady Managers, as wrere 
the late President of the Board of Govern- 
ors, Hon. James W. Beekman, and Mrs. 
T. C. Doremus, President of the Board of 
Lady Managers. 
Ques.—What were the sentiments of the 
late President of the Board of Governors, 
Hon. James W. Beekman, toward Dr. Sims 
and his relations to the hospital ? 
Ans.—At a reception given by Mrs. John 
Jacob Astor, Mr. Beekman, meeting Mrs. 
Dr. Prott, daughter of Dr. Sims residing 
in Paris, said to her, “ My dear child, I 
wish you to tell your dear father (Dr. Sims) 
that I love him and always done so, 
and that I would tell him so myself if I 
could find time to see him, and that I think 
he has been treated most outrageously by 
all three of the boards of the Woman’s 
Hospital, and that I and his friends will do 
our best to set him right. God bless him 
and his !” Two weeks later Mr. Beekman 
was in his grave and never met Dr. Sims 
again. Similar sentiments are entertained 
by Mr. Cooper, Mr. Benedict, Mr. Wet- 
more, and others, as I have been repeatedly 
assured. 
Ques.—What do you yourself know of 
the early efforts of Dr. Sims to found the 
Woman’s Hospital and of the difficulties he 
had to encounter and overcome, and of his 
plans ? 
Ans.—In brief: I met Dr. Sims at his 
house early in Ma}r, 1854. He laid his 
plans before me and recounted the opposi- 
tion he had met from the profession. He 
appeared to be in a state of hopelessness 
and fatal decline of his physical powers. 
He told me it was impossible to get a hear- 
ing, or arouse any interest in his project for 
founding a hospital for the treatment of 
diseases peculiar to woman, reciting several 
instances of bad treatment and opposition. 
One instance was of so disgraceful a nature 
that I can not refrain from stating it here. 
An eminent surgeon (now dead) connected 
with the New York City Hospital, borrowed 
Dr. Sims’ instruments, invented by himself, 
to use in trying to perform Dr. Sims’ opera- 
tion for vesico-vaginah fistula, (they being 
the only instruments then made) and yet 
this man failed Hn common decency, by 
neglecting to invite Dr. Sims (then a stran- 
ger in the city) to witness his attempt, 
which, as might have been expected, proved 
a failure, and this great doctor was the 
most virulent and life-long opponent of Dr. ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORH. 
171 
Sims in the Woman’s Hospital, y.et at the 
time of his death, very recently, he, with 
many other opposers of Dr. Sims and the 
Woman’s Hospital, was a member of the 
Consulting Board of Surgeons of that insti- 
tution. This is a sample of the temper of 
the great majority of the older members of 
the medical profession in this city at the 
outset. 
The following extract is from Dr. Sims 
himself, and explains itself: 
“ In October, 1853, I came to New York 
to reside ; soon after, I conceived the idea 
of establishing a hospital for the treatment 
of the diseases of women. 
My programme was to enlist the leading 
members of my profession in the enter- 
prise, and through them to reach influential 
citizens. 
Dr. John W. Francis was the first friend 
I made ; Mr. Henri L. Stuart was the next, 
and through him I reached the Hon. Peter 
Cooper, and the Hon. E. C. Benedict, who 
have remained true friends ever since. Mr. 
Stuart alone knowrs the thousand little an- 
noyances, and trials, and troubles I passed 
through in New York in establishing the 
Woman’s Hospital. He alone knows the 
opposition and persecution I endured, all 
of which I forgave long ago. 
It was Mr. Stuart who placed me in a 
position to command the profession, whether 
they would or not, and to lead them to do 
what they should have done. Mr. Stuart 
knows, as I do, that but for his influence 
exerted in a way that was irresistible, I 
would have been lost, and the Woman’s 
Hospital could not have been. 
All this may seem irrelevant, but I give 
this hint at the private history of the 
Woman’s Hospital, as a reason, for Mr. 
Stuart’s unswerving attachment to me and 
to the Woman’s Hospital.” 
Dr. Sims’ plan included the establishment 
of a hospital for the treatment of cancer, 
which he believed would prove to be a cura- 
ble disease. His investigations in this field 
have been extensive, elaborate and minute, 
going far beyond the teachings of the school 
of medicine to which he belongs, embracing 
an original and comprehensive theory and 
practice based thereon, and it was his inten- 
tion to have asked the city authorities to 
assign him the twenty-five beds to which it 
is entitled, in consideration of its noble 
land grant on which the hospital stands, to 
be used as a permanent cancer hospital, 
and to ask for suitable appropriations 
annually to make these beds free to such 
suffering women afflicted with cancer as 
were unable to pay for medical treatment 
and care. The Woman’s Hospital should 
at once be turned over to Dr. Sims, and his 
original plans carried out by him in their 
entirety before it is too late. The selfish 
and scheming interlopers should be turned 
out, and the institution organized as was 
originally intended by its founder, Dr. Sims. 
What impressed me profoundly from the 
first was his great modesty, unselfishness 
and simplicity. He would not consent to 
have his name placed in the original charter 
because he thought it would injure his in- 
fluence in trying to raise up friends and get 
money for the hospital. This fact enables 
the hospital authorities to publish their 
annual circular and reports, including the 
charter names, and still never mention the 
name of the founder of the hospital, which 
is often done. 
My own relations with Dr. Sims are 
as follows: Early in our acquaintance 
he made me a very generous business 
offer, which I declined, simply remarking, 
“Doctor, with your ill health and large 
family you will have enough to do to get 
along. We will work together to build up 
the Woman’s Hospital for the sake of 
woman and humanity. All I want is this, 
that you shall give your best services and 
skill, free of charge, to such cases as from 
time to time, may come under my observa- 
tion and are nnable to pa}", as I may call to 
your attention. I shall never ask anything 
of you unless I need it, and when I do, I 
want you to grant it if you can.” Dr. Sims 
replied, “Agreed.” 
He has kept his part of the agreement to 
the letter, and we have worked together 
twenty-two years without friction, and 
neither has ever lost sight of the great 172 
ST. LOUIS CLIN-CAL RECORD. 
interests involved in the founding of the 
Woman’s Hospital in the State of New 
York, nor shall we while we live. 
Ques.—What do you know about the 
present controversy between Dr. Sims, and 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas? 
Ans.—During the time Dr. Sims was 
absent in Europe, and after his return in 
1868, there seemed to be a general disposi- 
tion among the medical men of New York 
to ignore him and set up Dr. Emmet as the 
founder of the Woman’s Hospital, who was 
often represented to be far superior to Dr. 
Sims in skill and ability, and the impression 
prevailed that Dr. Sims would never return 
here. When it was proposed to reorganize 
the Medical Board, Dr. Emmet went so far 
as to say to the Hon. Mr. B , a member 
of the Board of Governors, “ that when 
Dr. Sims came in the Hospital at one door, 
he should walk out at the other.” Dr. Sims 
was repeatedly warned he had no genuine 
support from his associates of the Medical 
Board, Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas, 
but he scouted the idea and would not 
believe it possible that the}1- could be 
scheming to involve him in a collision with 
their cooperators in the boards of Gover- 
nors and Lady Managers until they had 
achieved their purpose and had fairly ousted 
him from his position on the Medical 
Board. He was more than once told that 
Dr. Thomas was the main wire puller 
against him, all to no purpose. Also that 
the editor of Appleton’s New York Medical 
Journal, Dr. Hunter, was the mere tool and 
“Man Friday” of Dr. Thomas, using that 
journal to markedly glorify him at the 
expense of all other members of the pro- 
fession. These repeated warnings were of 
no avail, and were unheeded by Dr. Sims 
until theyiwere demonstrated and exposed 
by the circular sent to Dr. Sims, and which 
was set up and printed in the New York 
Medical Journal several days before it was 
sent to Dr. Sims, May 18th, 1877. I met 
Dr. 'Hunter at Dr. Sims’ house, and he 
agreed to publish any statement Dr. Sims 
might make. -Has he done so? No! but 
he was the active and willing tool to come 
and go at the beck of Dr. Thomas in 
all this disgraceful business of trying to 
blacken and ruin one of the noblest of men, 
Dr. Sims. Henri L. Stuart. 
From letters written by Dr. Sims since 
he reached Paris, we learn that his stay in 
Europe is likely to be prolonged until Sep- 
tember, 1878. His reception there has been 
most flattering. He was made Honorary 
President of the International Medical 
Congress, which met at Geneva on the ninth 
of September. It is very evident that the 
personal and professional jealousy which 
has made his last stay in his native land so 
uncomfortable, has not extended beyond 
the seas. 
He is now busily engaged upon the re- 
vision of his Uterine Surgery. The book 
will not be ready for the press for some 
months. When it appears we have no 
doubt it will excel anything which has ever 
been written upon the subject, and will per- 
manently remain a fitting monument to the 
fame of one of the few who have really 
given a strong impulse to the advancement 
of medicine. 
After duly considering all the evidence 
presented in this case, we have no hesita- 
tion whatever in saying that we believe 
Dr. Sims has proved his case against Drs. 
Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas. The charges 
made b}r Mr. Stuart have been investigated 
and instead of his statements being “un- 
qualifiedly false,” they are proven to be 
simply true. 
In the “ struggle for existence,” which is 
yearly becoming a fiercer one in the Ameri- 
can medical profession, Dr. J. Marion Sims 
has shown his ability to survive although 
every deadly moral weapon has been used 
against him. Jealousy, calumny, vitupera- 
tion, slander, malice, falsehood, treason, 
have been combined against him, and he 
still lives to fight his enemies with the bright 
blade of truth, and confusion overwhelms 
the conspirators. WORLD’S FAIR MEDAL, 
PHILADELPHIA, 1876. 
First Prize awarded by the Judges for WARNER & CO’S SOLUBLE 
SUGAR-COATED PILLS, over Pills of every description. 
REPORT. 
To WM. R. WARNER & CO., Philadelphia, Pa. 
FOR 
Sugar-Coated Pills. 
“The SUGAR-COATED PILLS of WM. R. WARNER & CO. 
are SOLUBLE, RELIABLE, and UNSURPASSED in the perfec- 
tion of SUGAR-COATING, thorough composition and accurate subdivision. 
“The pills of PHOSPHORUS are worthy of special notice. The ele- 
ment is thoroughly diffused and subdivided, yet perfectly protected from 
oxidation.” 
Attest, A. T. GOSHORN, Director General. 
J. L. CAMPBELL, [seal.] J. R. HAWLEY, President. 
* * * * * Sugar-Coated Pills are more Soluble than 
Gelatine-Coated or Compressed Pills. —Prof. Reming- 
tons Paper read before American Pharmaceutical Association, 
Boston, 1875. MEDICAL SUPPLIES 
Physicians'Hospitals 
PHYSICIANS’ OUTFITS FURNISHED AT PRICES RANGING 
FROM $50.00 TO $200.00. 
With a long and practical experience gained when in the Retail Drug 
Business, and a thorough knowledge of Practical Pharmacy, in 
connection with our present daily correspondence and intercourse with 
medical practitioners, we are enabled to understand exactly the require- 
ments for an office practice and Dispensing Department. We supply 
everything relating to the business, embracing chemical and pharmaceutical 
preparations, drugs, whole and powdered, and all the recent medical 
appliances, for which our Philadelphia manufacturers are so famous. All 
drugs are carefully selected, Chemicals —pure, Pharmaceuticals officinal and 
standard in strength and we will guarantee satisfaction to those favoring us 
with their orders. 
Fresh and Reliable Vaccine Virus from 
healthy subjects. Warranted efficacious. Sent 
by mail, $1.25 per crust, $12 00 per doz. 
WILLIAM R. WARNER & CO. 
w HOLESALE DRUGGISTS, 
AND 
A/JANUFACTURING CHEMISTS, 
PHILADELPHIA, WARNER & -CO’S 
SUGAR-COATED 
Phosphorus Pills. 
Phosphorus is an important constituent of the animal economy, particularly of the brain 
and nervous system, and is regarded as a valuable remedy for the following diseases :— 
Lapse of Memory, Impotency, Softening of the 
Brain, Loss of Nerve Power, Phthisis, 
Paralysis and Neuralgia. 
PILULAR FORM HAS BEEN DEEMED THE MOST DESIRA- 
BLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF PHOSPHORUS. It is in a perfect 
state of subdivision, as it is incorporated with the material while in solution, 
and is not extinguished by oxidation. 
THIS METHOD OF PREPARING PHOSPHORUS HAS BEEN DIS- 
COVERED AND BROUGHT TO PERFECTION BY US, and is thus presented 
in its elementery state, free from repulsive qualities, which have so long mili- 
tated against the use of this potent and valuable remedy. This is a matter re- 
oairing the notice of tho physician, and under all circumstances the adminis- 
tration of Phosphorus should be guarded with the greatest care, and a per- 
fect preparation only used. 
Its use in the above-named complaints is supported by no less authority than Prof. Delpech, 
Prof. Fisher of Berlin, Dr. Eames, (in the Dublin Journal,') Dr. Burgess, and Dr. Hammond, 
of New York. The special treatment indicated in these cases is: 1st. Complete rest of mind, 
especially abstention from all occupations resembling that upon which the mind has been over- 
worked ; 2d. The encouragement of any new hobby or study not in itself painful, which the 
patient might select; 3d. Tranquillity to the senses, which expressly give in these cases incor- 
rect impressions, putting only those objects before them calculated to soothe the mind; 4th. A 
very nourishing diet, especially of shell-fish: 5th. The internal administration of Phosphorus 
in Pilular form prepared by WILLIAM R. WARNER Ss CO. 
PILLS SENT BY MAIL ON RECEIPT OF LIST PRICES. 
Price 
per ioo. 
Pil Phosphori, i-ioo gr Warner & Co’s $i oo 
Pil Phosphori Comp Warner & Co’s 2 oo 
Phosphorus, I-ioo gr. Ext. Nuc. Vomicae, gr. 
Pil Phosphori et Nucis Vomicae Warner & Co’s 2 00 
Phosphorus, 1-50 gr. Ext. Nuc. Vomicae, '/% gr. 
Pil Phosphori ct P'erri et Nuc. Vom Warner & Co’s 2 00 
Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. FcrriCarb. (Vallet) 1 gr. Ext. Nuc. Vom., % s^- 
ni Phosphori ct Ferri ct Quiniae Warner & Co’s 2 90 
Phosphorus, I-ioo gr. Ferri Carb. (Vallet) I gr. Quinia Sulph., I gr. 
Pil Phosphori et Ferri et Nuc. Vom. et Quiniae Warner & Co’s 2 90 
Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. Ferri Carb. (Vallet) X gr. 
Ext. Nuc. Vom., *4 gT. Quiniae Sulph., 1 gr. 
SOLD BY LEADING DRUGGISTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 
WILLIAM R. WAENER & CO. 
PTTTT.ATyF.T.PTTTA. INGLU VlN 
FROM THE 
i 
mmmm callqsus gauxbaous. 
A specific for VOMITING IN PREGNANCY, a potent and reliable 
remedy for the cure of INDIGESTION, DYSPEPSIA, and SICK 
STOMACH, caused from debility of that organ. It is superior to the Pep- 
sin Preparations, since it acts with more certainty, and effects cures where they 
fail. $1.00 Per Bottle. Sent by mail on receipt of price. 
“A NEW REMEDY, CALLED INGLUVIN.” 
BY A. F. SHELLY, M. D., of PHILADELPHIA. 
" This is obtained from the gizzard of the domestic fowl (chicken) and is a Specific for Vomiting in Pregnancy. 
I have used this remedy for twenty-five years, and it has never failed. It is also the mostposvcrfiul and reliable 
remedy for the Cure of Indigestion, Dyspepsia, and Sick Stomach, caused from debility of that organ. It is 
useful in all cases where pepsines and pancreatines are used, but with much more certainty of its good results, 
for it puts all those preparations, in my experience, in the background. 
In complicated affections of the Stomach, such as Inflammation, Gastralgia, Pyrosis, &c., it may be com- 
bined with Subnitrate of Bismuth and opiates ; and in Diarrhoea and Cholera Infantum, with astringents, both 
vegetable and mineral. I have given the article to several prominent physicians, who have used it with the 
happiest results, among whom I may mention Prof. E. Wallace, of the Jefferson Medical College; he gives 
me the result of seventeen cases as follows .— 
In Vomiting of Pregnancy, out of nine cases he cured six, and palliated two, and in one case the remedy 
was not taken according to direction, and therefore had no effect. 
He used it in seven cases of Sick Stomach, caused by chronic inflammation of the uterus ; cured five, and two 
remained doubtful. He also used it in a case of very obstinate Sick Stomach, caused by an irreducible hernia, 
and says this was the only remedy that gave any relief. 
We, who have some experience, all know that Vomiting of Pregnancy is a sore affliction, and in some cases 
almost unendurable, nay, indeed, putting life in jeopardy; but in Ingluvin we have a remedy which will 
prove to be a great blessing to mothers, who, as yet, think vomiting must be endured as a natural consequence. 
If I am able, by this publication, to induce the medical fraternity to make use of the remedy, I am positive 
that a great boon will be conferred upon a class of sufferers who claim our sympathy. 
The dose is from five to ten grains, hardly ever more than five, except in obstinate cases. For children, from 
one to five grains. My mode of administering it is in a spoonful of water or tea, or it may be strewn on a piece 
of bread and covered over with a little butter; it is, however, nearly tasteless. In Dyspepsia and in Vomiting 
of Pregnancy, I direct it to be taken half an hour or so before each meal. In other affections of the Stomach 
and Bowels, every two to four hours. I give it uncombined, except in complicated cases, as heretofore men- 
tioned. 
The methods by which this principle can be obtained from the viscus are various. When I commenced to 
employ it, I used it in rather a crude state, by pulverizing the lining membrane of the gizzard ; but it requires 
too much care and precision in the drying and cleansing operation, in order not to destroy its virtues. There is 
also great inconvenience in obtaining the viscus during the heat of summer and extreme cold of winter, as tem- 
perature is one of the main things to be observed, in order to preserve its efficacy, purity and sweetness. Later, 
finding this mode of preparation unsatisfactory and inconvenient for the above reasons, I consulted with 
WM. R. WARNER & CO., 1228 Market Street, Philadelphia, who have prepared a form, designated 
Ingluvin; its purity, and also its good effects, I can vouch for.” 
—“ The Medical and Surgical Reporter,” February 3rd, 1877. 
PREPARED ONLY BY 
WM. R: WARNER & CO. 
PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTS, 
1228 MARKET STREET, 1*7IIEADELEITTA. 
OF NAMK^# 
"Dr. Shelly, of this city, informs us that owing to the fact that a proprietary remedy has been 
on the market for some time which bears the name "DIGESTIF,” he has adopted the appellation 
"IFOIVVIF ” for the preparation from the gizzard of the domestic fowl described in the Medical 
and Surgical Reporter, February 3d, 1877. CAUTION!! SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. 
The Spheroidal or Capsule shape of McKesson & Robbins’ Pills is the best adapted to the throat, and 
obviates the sickening sensation so universal in swallowing a round Pill. __ 
Every drug and chemical used in McKesson & Robbins’ Pills are thoroughly tested by a competent chemisty 
and the Pills repeatedly analyzed to prove correctness in the synthesis. 
McKesson & Robbins’ 
Pills m Granules, 
OK THE 
JJ. S. fHARMACOPlA &r OTHER RELIABLE J^ORMULJE, 
GELATINE-COATED, 
JProc'esis and IVIaeHiiiery 
9/ & 93 Fulton, 80, 82 & 84 Ann Streets, 
NEW YORK. 
A physician in St. Louis, who has for some time been using our Pills, prescribed “Gelatine- 
Coated Phosphorus Pills, gu” intending to have the McKesson & Robbins Pills dispensed, 
but did not perceive the usual effects after administering them to the patient. Upon investiga- 
tion, he found the Pills resembled ours somewhat in external appearance, but on cutting one 
open, he found it contained hardly a trace of Phosphorus. The doctor went to the druggist, 
who had dispensed the prescription, and found that, not having our Phosphorus Pills in stock, 
he had dispensed an imitation; the druggist claimed that he was warranted in so doing, as the 
physician had not taken the precaution to put the name McKesson & Robbins upon his 
prescription, although the physician had been in the habit of specifying our pills, and the drug- 
gist knew it. We have had our attention called to several cases of this character, regarding 
the Quinine Pills, Morphia granules and others, when, on failing to obtain results, the physicians 
have found that they were being imposed upon by imitations; this has induced them to write 
“McKesson & Robbins’ G. C. Pills” in full upon their prescriptions and add, “ send no others.” 
We have full lines of our Pills in all of the large, and in most of the small cities, and there is 
no excuse for substituting imitations. 
McKesson & robbins’ 
GRANULES, Gelatine-Coated. 
Arsenious Acid 
1-50, 1-40, 1-30, 1-20 gr. 
Atropia 
Corrosive Sublimate 
Digitalia 
This is prepared in our,own laboratory and can be confidently relied upon. 
Mercury, Bin-Iodide 
..1-25, 1-16 gr. 
Mercury, Proto-Iodide •• 
Morphia, Acetate 
Morphia, Sulphate 
1-16, 1-10, 1-8, 1-6, 1-4 gr. 
Morphia, Valerianate •• 
Strychnia 
Sulphur, Iodide 
1-25, 1-10 gr 
Zinc, Phosphide 
1-6, 1-4, 1-2 gr. 
Physicians have experienced the need of a reliable and pleasant form for administering 
these more potent remedies. The want of reliability, as exhibited in the granules of the market 
by the varying action following their administration, has caused them to be avoided—and very 
justly—by most practitioners, who have preferred rather to use solutions, and trust to the custom 
of dropping, or using a teaspoon to measure their portions, although nearly as uncertain, owing 
to great difference in the sizes of teaspoons; and the fact that drops vary with the conditions 
and form of surface, from which they flow. 
In our preparations we have taken special precautions by enforcing our system of checking 
the weights, and, at large expense, have had our machines for division of the substances, so 
carefully and correctly constructed, as to insure an exactness never before maintained in this 
class of preparations. We can, therefore, afford assurance to physicians of correct weight and 
perfect division. Our granules have been appreciated and are being extensively used by the 
profession. Be careful and see that “McKesson & Robbins” is on the label. 
CAUTION!! SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. CAUTION! I SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. 
Therapeutical Notes on some Specialties in McKesson & 
Robbins’ Pills, (Gelatine-Coated). 
PHOSPHORUS, moo, i-5n, 1-20,1-12 gr. 
The pure transparent Gelatine we use is in no degree porous, it preserves the Phosphorus 
perfectly in the free state; while Sugar, owing to its crystaline nature, is very porous and will 
admit of rapid change in substances, of a delicate character, covered with it. We have the 
Phosphorus in state of solution in the excipient we employ, this insures a gradual elimina- 
tion of the Phosphorus in the stomach, thus avoiding \ho severo irritation that is so often 
experienced after taking tho ordinary Phosphorus Pills, which are prepared by mixing the 
Phosphorus in substance with the excipient, in which small fragments of Phosphorus often 
remain. Note remarks by Dr. Squibb, in his paper before Am. Pharm. Ass’n, Sept., 76, in 
which he states that Phosphorus should never be administered in substance, and if a coating 
be used, he commends Gelatine. 
Many of the most eminent Physicians throughout the country, among whom are leading 
specialists in the treatment of Neurotic diseases, assert that McKesson & Robbins’ Phosphorus 
Pills are the most rational medium yet found for exhibiting Phosphorus. 
PHOSPHORUS COMPOUND, McKesson & Robbins' Pills, bothgr. 
PHOSPHORUS COMPOUND AND IRON, McKesson & Robbins’ Pills, 
ERGOTIN PILLS, 3 grs. 
We manufacture our Ergotin with great care from the best quality of fresh, selected Ergot, 
and it contains in the most potent form all tho active constituents of Ergot of Rye, each grain 
representing 10 grs. of Ergot, and each pill being equal to half a teaspoonful of officinal fluid 
extract. The value of Ergotin, in the place of the crude drug and the Fluid Preparations, is 
conceded; and it is being largely administered both in this country and in Europe. It has 
taken a prominent place in the treatment of Neurotic diseases. Many of our most reliable 
practitioners, and particularly those of extended experience in Gynaecology, assert that 
they have never found a preparation of Ergot, in which, by experience, they felt as much 
confidence as in McKesson & Robbins’ Ergotin Pills. The advantages of prescribing it in 
this form will be readily acknowledged. (Dose, 1 to 3.) 
We offer our Ergotin, prepared specially for hypodermic use, in one ounce bottles. 
PHOSPHATES IRON, QUININE & STRYCHNINE PILLS. 
Each pill represents an equivalent of about two teaspoonfuls of Elixir, and is a much more 
preferable form, in being more agreeable to take and not objectionable to the weakest 
stomach, when Syrup or Elixir are rejected. As a tonic, this pill is deservedly popular. We 
also offer Iron, Quinine and Strychnine Pills, the Iron being in the form of Quevenne’s or 
reduced by hydrogen. 
EXTRACT SUMBUL, (Musk Root,) l gr. 
This drug has for some time been extensively used in Russia, and for several years in Eng- 
land and America, in the treatment of hysteria and general spasmodic disorders, particu- 
larly in that class of cases where assafeetida has heretofore been much used. Those most 
experienced in its use claim that it possesses great merit. (Dose, 2 to 3.) 
SALICYLIC ACID PILLS, and 5 grs. 
Our pills present the best form for administering this now very important remedy, which 
has proved so efficacious in Rheumatism, and which is also extensively used as an Antiseptic 
and Febrifuge. It is claimed that the solutions, formed by the use of Sodium, Ammonium 
and other salts, produce combinations which do not represent the full value of the free Acid. 
EXTRACT GRINDELEA R0BUSTA PILLS, 3 gr*. 
The Solid Extract is of our own manufacture and is ten times the strength of the Herb; it 
can be used much more readily and with better effect than any of the liquid preparations. 
The use of this remedy in Hay Fever, and all Asthmatic difficulties, has increased largely in. 
the Eastern States and Europe, and its therapeutic value is conceded. (Dose, 1 to 3.) 
EXTRACT CUARANA PILLS, 3 grs. 
This Solid Extract is also manufactured in our own laboratory, and is many times the aver- 
age strength of tho drug. We offer these Gelatine-Coated Pills with confidence in their being 
the only accurate mode of preparing this widely used and much appreciated remedy, as tho 
drug varies so much in strength; some preparations in the market have been found to con- 
sist largely of impurities. We carefully test each shipment wo receive, and our Solid Extract 
is of superior and uniform quality. The value of Guarana, in many phases of sick, nervous 
and sun headache, as well as in Neuralgia, and in irritations of the mucous membrane, has 
become well known to practitioners, and its happy effects, in Diarrhoea, Dysentery and 
kindred diseases, have been attested in numerous cases. (Dose, 2 to 3.) 
CAUTION 11—SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. CAUTION ! ? SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. 
QUININE, SULPHO-CARBQLATE, i, 2 and 3 gra. 
This Salt of Quinine has been very much used in some of our extreme malarial dis- 
tricts during the past two years. Those, who have tested it very carefully, claim that it 
possesses a most positivo specific action in the treatment of fever and ague, and has proved 
itself eminently superior to the Sulphate of Quinine in all malarial fevers. 
PHOSPHIDE ZINC, 1-6, 1-4 and 1-2 gr. 
The Phosphide of Zinc has been very successfully used by Drs. Hammond, (see Dr. H.’s last 
book,) Routh, and other prominent authorities on treatment of brain diseases, all of whom 
assert its efficacy. It has been used with remarkable results in severe cases of Neuralgia, (see 
paper by Dr. Adolphus, St. L. Med. Jour., XIII, 4T1). P. Yigier, Bull. Gen. de Tlierap., states 
that Phosphide of Zinc is moro prompt and reliable in its action than free Phosphorus. 
PHOSPHIDE ZINC AND NUX VOMICA, (Hammond’ s formula.) 
IODIDE OF IRON, (Blancard’s formula,) 1 gr. 
Preferable to the Syrup and much more soluble and active than the imported pills, which, 
are coated with a resin, and are usually very old before they reach the consumer. 
MONOBROMATED CAMPHOR, 2and3gra. 
Is now being considerably used in treatment of Spermatorrhoea; strongly recommended in 
oases of Cerebral-Anasmia; used successfully in infantile Convulsions from teething; Hys- 
teria, Headache from over study or nervousness and Nymphomania. (Dose, 3 to 4 grs.) 
QUININE, SULPHATE & BI-SULPHATE, M,i,iM,3,4&5gr3. 
McKesson & Robbins’ Quinine Pills are well and favorably known, having displaced the usa 
of other pills in New York and all parts of the country. The fact that they always yield more 
speedy and satisfactory results, and the ease, with which even a child can take them, hava 
aided in making them tho favorite pills. Several physicians have relatecKto us cases—partic- 
ularly of Diphtheria—where they found it impossible to administer the*round pill, but the 
patients swallowed McKesson & Robbins’Pills without difficulty. Wo call special attention 
to our five grain Quinines, which, owing to form and naturo of coating, are as easily swallowed 
as the ordinary two grain. Our Ei-Sulphate of Quinine Pills contain an additional equivalent- 
of sulphuric acid, thus rendering the officinal sulphate much more soluble, a decided advan- 
tage over the ordinary Quinine Pills. See Am. Jour. Pharm., XXY, 292. 
QUININE, CARBOLATE, 1 gr. 
QUININE, SALICYLATE, i gr. 
QUININE, VALERIANATE, I gr. 
CINCHONEDIA, SULPHATE, .. .1, 2 and 3 grs. 
Now coming into extensive use. McKesson & Robbins’ Pills have proved the best form for 
administering it. 
COMPOUND HYPOPHOSPHITES PILLS, (Lime, Soda, Potassa. 
and Iron.) 
Form the best possible medium for administering this remedy, which occupies so 
prominent a place for the treatment of lung diseases and bronchial affections. 
DOVER’S POWDER PILLS, 2i and 5 grs. 
Affording an agreeable medium for the administration of this exceedingly nauseous 
compound, the value of theso Pills will be readily seen by Physicians. 
LACTO-PHOSPHATE OF LIME PELLS, 5gra. 
This form possesses many advantages over the Syrup. Used with much success in 
Dyspepsia. 
PEPSIN, BISMUTH AND STRYCHNINE PILLS, -5 grs. 
Representing this combination in the most agreeable and reliable form. 
SOLIDIFIED COPAIBA WITH OLEO-RESSN CUBES 
. PILLS, 3 and 5 grs. 
We prepare both these ingredients in our own laboratory, with great care, and can assert 
their superior quality. The value of the Oleo-Resin Cubeb often offered in market is very 
slight, duo to the fact that the largest proportion i3 powdered Cubeb Berries. 
Price Lists furnished upon application. See list of formulas, last page. 
Private Formulas of 3,000 or more Pills, made and coated to order. 
MCKESSON & ROBBINS, 91 Fulton St., Ncf York. 
CAUTION !!—SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. CAUTION!! SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. 
Formulas of McKesson & Robbins’ Pills, (Gelatine-Coated) 
f Calcii, Hypophos., 1 gr. ] 
1 Sodii, “ 3*4 gr. | 
1 Potassii, u 1-2 gr. j 
[ Ferri, “ 1-4 gr. J 
*Iodide of Iron (Blaneard’s formula). 
Ipecac & Opium (Dover’* Powder,U.S.) 2% grs. 
Ipecac & Opium (Dover’s Powder, U.S.) 5 grs. 
Iron by Hydrogen (Quevenne’s)... 1 and 2 grs. 
Iron, Citrate and Quinine 1 and 2 grs. 
Iron, Proto-Carb. (Vallet’s Mass.) 2 grs. & 3 grs. 
Iron, Proto-Carb. (Vallet’s Mass.) 5 grs. 
*Iron, Proto-Chloride 1 gr. 
1 Ferrum, Redactum, 1 gr. 1 
•< Quinite, Sulphas, 1 gr. v 
( Strychnia, 1-60 gr. ) 
- 
( Reft.', Podopliylii, - 1-10 gr.) 
< Hydiarg., Chlor., Mite, 1 gr. V 
( Ext. Col. Comp., pulv., 3 grs. j 
Lime, Lacto-Phosphate 5 grs 
•Mercury, Bin-Iodide 1-25 and 1-16 gr. 
*Mercury, Prot-Iodide 1-5, and 1-4 gr. 
Morphine, Acetate 1-S and 1-4 gr. 
* Morphine, Sulphate, 1*16,1-10,1-8,1-6,1-4 gr. 
Morphine Valerianate 1*8 gr. 
Neural 
Ext., Hyoscyami/ 2-3 gr. 
4< Conii, 2-3 gr. 
u Ignatii Amarae, 1-2 gr. 
“ Opii, 1-2 gr. 
“ Aconiti, 1-3 gr. 
“ Cannab. Indicte, 1-4 gr. 
11 Stramonii, 1-5 gr. 
** Belladonna*, 1-6 gr. 
fQuinite, Sulphas, 2 grs. 1 
Morphia*, Sulphas, 1-20 gr. | 
•j Strychnia, 1-30 gr. 
Acid Arseniosum, 1-20 gr. 
1 Ext., Aconiti, 1-2 gr.j 
Neuralgia, (Dr. Gross’,) as above, 
Morphine. 
Nux Vomica Extract 
Opium. U. S 
without 
•Opium Extract 1-4, 1-2 and 1 gr. 
Opium and Acetate of Lead 2 grs 
j Opii, Pulv., 1 gr. 1 
1 Plumbi, Acet., 1 gr.) 
Opium and Camphor 
( Opium, 1 gr. ) 
( Camphora, 2 gr*.J 
Pepsin and Bismuth $ gr** 
( Pepsin, 2 grs. 1 
( Bismuth, Sub-Nit., 3 grs. f 
Pepsin, Bismuth and Strychnine 5 grs 
( Pepsin, 2 1-2 grs. ) 
■< Bismuth, Sub-Nit., 2 1-2 grs. V 
( Strychnia, 1-60 gr. ) 
Phosphates Iron, Quinine and Strychnine 
( Ferri, Pliosphas., 2 grs. ) 
■< Quinite, Phosphas, 1 gr. V 
( Strychniae, Phosphas, 1-60 gr. ) 
Phosphorus 1-100, 1-50, 1-20 and 1-12 gr. 
( Phosphorus, 1-60 gr. ) 
1 Ext., Nucis Vomicte, Mgr.J 
Phosphorus Compound 
1 Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. ) 
( Ext., Nucis Vomicte, 1-4 gr.) 
Phosphorus Compound and Iron 
j Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. ) 
•< F*rri, Phosphas, 1-2 gr. v 
( Ext., Nucis Vomicae, 1-8 gr. ) 
Podophyllin 1-4, 1-2 and 1 gr. 
Podophyllin Compound 
j Podophyllin, 1-2 gr. j 
■\ Ext., Hyoscvami, 1-8 gr. 
( Ext., Nucis Vomicte, 1-16 gr. j 
Podophyllin and Blue 
j Podophyllin, 1-2 gr. 1 
1 P>h, Hydrarg., 2 1-2 grs. J 
Podophyllin, Capsicum and Belladonna 
Podophy 
( Podophyllin, 1-4 gr. ) 
-j Ext., Bellad. Ale., 1-8 gr. V 
( Pulv., Capsici, 1-2 gr. j 
lin, Ext., Coloc. and Belladonna .... 
( Podophyllin, 1-2 gr. ) 
Ext., Coloc. Comp., 2 grs. /■ 
[ “ Belladon., 1-4 gr. ) 
The coating, not being porous, will protect such preparations as Phosphorus and Iron Compounds better than Sugar. 
One of McKesson & Robbins’ Pills, placed in the mouth, will be relieved of its coating in less than two minutes. 
Acid, Arsenious.... 1-50, 1-40, 1-30 and 1-20 gr. 
*Acid, Salicylic 2 1-2 and 5 grs. 
Aloes, U. S 4 grs. 
Aloes and Assafuetida, U. S 4 grs. 
Aloes and Iron 3 grs. 
f Pulv., Aloes, Soc., 1-2 gr. ) 
J Pulv., Zingib. J:un., 1 gr. 1 
1 Ferri, Sulph., Exsic., 1 gr. j 
( Extract, Conii, 1-2 gr. J 
Aloes and Myrrh, U. S 
i Ext., Nucis Vom., 1-3 gr. 
■< Ext., Hyoscyami, 1-2 gr. 
( Ext., Coloc. Comp., 2 grs. 
Assafuetida 
( Assafuetida, 1 1-2 grs. ) 
( Pulv., Saponis, 1 -2 gr.) 
Assafcetida, U. S 
( Assafuetida, 3 grs. ) 
( Pulv., Saponis, 1 gr. 1 
( Assafuetida, 3 grs. ) 
( Ext., Nucis Vom., 1-4 gr.) 
♦Atropia 1-60 gr. 
♦Belladonna Extract % gr. 
Bismuth, Subnitrate 3 and 5 grs. 
Blue Pill, U. S 1, 3 and 5 grs. 
Calomel 1-2, 1, 2, 3 and 5 grs. 
j Camphora, 1 gr. ) 
( Ext. Hyoscyami, 1 gr.) 
♦Camphor, Mono-Bromate 2 and 3 grs. 
Cannabis Indica Extract 1-2 gr. 
Cathartic Vegetable 3 grs. 
f Ext., Col. Comp., pulv., 1 1-2 grs. "| 
j Res., Podophylli, - - 3-8 “ I 
I Res., Leptandree, - - 1-8 u 
4 Jalapae pulv, - - - 1-4 14 
Aloes Socotrin pulv. - 1-2 u 1 
Ext., Hyoscyami, - - 1-4 “ 
[ 01., Menthce Pip. 
Chinoidine 1-2, 1 and 3 grs. 
Cinchonia, Sulphate 3 grs. 
Cinchonidia, Sulphate v.. .1, 2 and 3 grs. 
Colocynth, Comp. Extract 3 grs. 
( Ext. Coloc. Comp., pulv.. 2 grs. 1 
-< Pulv. Ipecacuanha;, 1-6 gr. v 
( Pil., Hydrarg., 2 grs. ) 
Cook’s 3 grs. 
f Pulv., Aloes, Soc. 1 gr. "j 
J Hydrarg.,Chlor., Mite, 3-4 gr. 
J Pulv., Rhei., 1 gr. 
[ Pulv., Saponis, 1-4 gr. 
Copaiba 3 grs. 
Copaiba and Oleo-Resin Cubebs 3 grs. 
( Pil., Copaibae, 2 grs. ) 
( Oleo-Resin Cubebae, 1 gr. ) 
Copaiba and Oleo-Resin Cubebs 5 grs. 
t Pil., Copaiba;, 3 grs. J 
| Oleo-Resin Cubeoae, 2 grs. ) 
♦Corrosive Sublimate.... 1-40, 1-30 and 1-20 gr. 
♦Digitalia, pure 1-60 gr. 
f Pil., Hydrarg., 11-5 grs. 
J Pulv. Aloes, Soc., 1 1-5 grs. 
I Pulv. Jalapas, 1 1-5 grs. 
( Ant. et Pot., Tart., 1-50 gr. 
Dinner (Lady Webster’s) 
( Pulv., Aloes, Soc., 1 4-5grs. 
•< Pulv., Mastiches, 3-5 gr. 
(Pulv. Rosas,Gallicae,3-5gr. 
f Ergotin, - - 1 gr. 
I Ext., Helleb., Nig., 1 gr. 
< Ferri, Sulph., Exsic., 1 gr. 
Aloes, Soc., Pulv., 1 gr. 
[ 01. Sabinae, 1-4 gr. 
♦Ergotin 
Ferruginous (Blaud) 3 a 
( Ferri, Sulphas. ) 
( Potassa?, Carb. aa ) 
♦Grindelia Robusta Extract 
♦Guarana Extract (Paullinia) 
♦Henbane, Extract 
id 5 grs. 
( Pil., Hydrarg., 3 grs. ) 
•< Ext., Coloc. Comp., 2 grs. y 
( u Bellad., 1-4 gr.) 
Hooper’s 
W, gr«. 
♦Quinine, Carbolate 
♦Quinine, Salicylate 
...1 Er. 
*Quinine, Sulphate & Bi-Sulphate, 1-4 & 1-2 nr. 
Quinine, Sulphate and Bi-Sulphate... 
Quinine, Sulphate and Bi-Sulphate... 
Quinine, Sulphate and Bi-Sulphate... 
Quinine, Sulphate and Bi-Sulphate... 
Quinine, Sulphate and Bi-Sulphate... 
Quinine, Sulphate and Bi-Sulphate... 
♦Quinine, Sulpho-Carbolate ....1, 2 and 3 grs. 
Quinine and Aloes 1 or. 
( Quini*, Sulphas, 3-4 gr. 1 
\ Pulv., Aloes, Soc., 1-4 gr. j 
Quinine, Arsenic and Nux Vomica... 
( Quini*, Sulphas, 1 gr. 
•< Acid, Arsenlosum, 1-60 gr. 
( Ext., Nucis Vomicae, 1-4 gr. 
Quinine and Iron 
( Quini* Sulphas, 1 gr. > 
I Ferrum Redactum, 1 gr. \ 
Quinine and Carbonate Iron, 
$ Quini*, Sulphas, 1 gr. > 
( Ferri, Sub. Carb, 2 grs. \ 
Quinine, Phosphorus and Nux Vomica 
t Quini*, Sulphas, 1 gr. 
1 
Phosphorus, l-60gr. 
( Ext., Nucis Vomicae, 1-40 gr. 
Quinine, Phosphorus and Nux Vomica 
( Quini*, Sulphas., 1 gr. 
1 Phosphorus, 1-60 gr. 
( Ext., Nucis Vomicae. 1-4 gr. 
Quinine Compound 
( Quini*, Sulphas, 1 gr. 
-< Ferrum, Redact., 1 gr. 
( Acid, Arseniosum, 1-32 gr. 
Quinine Compound and Extract Dandelion 
1 
Quini*, Bi-Sulph.. 1 1-4 grs. 
Ferri, Sulph., Exsic., 2 grs. 
Acid, Arseniosum, 1-24 gr. 
Extract, Taraxici, 1 1-4 grs. 
} 
Quinine Compound and Strychnine.. 
J Quini*, Sulphas., 1 gr. 
1 Ferrum, Redactum, 1 gr. 
J Strychnia, 1-20 gr. 
[ Acid, Arseniosum, 1-20 gr. 
1 
Quinine 
, Valerianate 
• l-*gr. 
Ext., Coloc. Comp., 1 1-2 grs. 
Ext., Colch. Acet., 1 gr. 
Ext., Hvoscyami, 1-3 gr. 
Hydr., Chlor., Mite, 1-3 gr. 
! 
Rhubarb Compound, U. S 
Santonin and Calomel 
I Santonin, 1 gr. 1 
•< Calomel, 1 gr. > 
f Chocolate. I 
♦Sodium, Salicylate 
Strychnine 1-60,1-40 and 1-30 trr. 
♦Strychnine Compound 
Strychnia, 1-100 gr. 
Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. 
Ext. Cannab. Indie., 1-16 gr. 
Ginseng, 1 gr. 
f 
Ferri, Carb., 1 gr. 
Iodide 1-25 and 1-10 er. 
♦Sumbul, Extract 
...lgr. 
Hydr. Prot-Iodide, 1-2 gr. 
Lactucarium, - 1-2 er. 
] Ext., Opii, «’ - 1-10 gr. 
1 Ext., Cicutae, - \% grs. 
Tonic (Dr. Aiken) 
J Quini*, Sulph., 1 gr. ] 
} Acid, Arseniosum, 1-50 gr. | 
Triplex 
1 Ferrum, Redactum, 2-3 gr. | 
[ Strychnia, 1-50 gr. 
( Extract Aloes, 2 grs. ) 
Podophyllin, 1-2 gr. V 
( Pil., Hvdrarg., 1-2 gr. ) 
Triplex (Dr. Francis) 
( Pulv., Aloes, Soc. Pil., Hydrars:.) 
■< Pulv., Scammonii. 01., Tiglii. 
( Pulv., Myrrh*. Ol., Carui. 
Valerian Extract 
*Zinc, Phosphide 1-6, 1-4 and 1-2 gr. 
♦Zinc, Phosphide and Ext. Nux Vomica....... 
! 
Zinci, Phosphuretum, 1-10 gr. 
Ext., Nucis Vomicae. 1-4 err. 
Zinc, Valerianate 
RECENT ADDITIONS TO LIST. 
Aconitia 1-60 gr. 
( Pit. Hydrarg., 1 gr. ) 
■< Pulv. Opii., 1-2 gr. 1 
[ Pulv. Ipecac., 1-4 gr. ) 
Blue Pill, U. S 
f Quinia* Sulph.. l-2gi 
j Quinidia? Sulph., 1-2 gT 
1 Cinchonia? Sulph., 1-2 g 
l Cinchontdiae Sulph., 1*2 gT 
1 
j 
Codeia 116 and 1-6 gr. 
liydrastia( While Alkaloid) 1-2 and 1 gr. 
Jaborandi Rxtract 3ers 
Ox Gall Comp 3 gis. 
1 Fel Bovin, dep., 2 grs. ) 
( Pulv. Zingiber, 1 gr. f 
Phosphorus, Iron and Quinine 
(Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. 
S Ferri Carb. (ValJet’s), 1 gr. 
( Quini« Suljdi., 1 gr. 
Phosphorus, Iron, Quinine and Nux V 
f Phosphorus, 1-100 gr. 
I Ferri Carb. (Vallet’s) 1 gr. 
| Quinia? Sulph., ] gr. 
1 Ext. Nucis Vomica1, 1-2 gr. 
arnica.. 
J Piperin, 1-4 gr. \ 
( Hydr. Chlor. Mite, 1-4 gr. ) 
Podophyllin 
1-8 gr. 
(Podophyllin, 1-2 gr. i 
( Leptandrin, 1 gr. ) 
( Ext. Phytolacca, Ale., 2 grs. 1 
-< Ext. Stillingiae, “ 1 gr. 
( Ext. Stramonii, “ 1-8 gr. ] 
Potassium, Bromide 2 and 5 grs 
Quinine Sulpho-Carbol 5 grs 
Quinine and Strychnine 
( Quinite Sulph., 1 gr. ) 
(Strychnia, 1-60 gr.) 
Quinine, Iron and Nux Vomica 
( Quinta? Sulph., 1 gr.’ ) 
■l Ferii Cnrb. (Valletta), 2 grs. V 
( Ext. Nucis Vom., 1-4 gr.) 
Sahcin 2 1-2 and 5 gra. 
Salicylic Acid with Morphine 
( Acid Salicylicum, 2 1 -2 grs. ) 
) Morphia* Sulphas, 1-12 gr. ) 
Salicylic Acid with Morphine 
( Acid. Salicylicum, 6 grs. ) 
( Morphia? Sulphas, 1-8 gr. ) 
Sandal Wood Extract (McK. & R.) 2 grs 
Tartar Emetic 1-100, 1-20 and 1-4 gr. 
CAUTION l ! SPECIFY McKESSON & ROBBINS’. 15 3 6 PAPIN STREET, 
~~ !St. ].ovift. Mo. T'" 
Established under the management of the SISTERS 
OF ST. MARY, especially for females afflicted 
with diseases peculiar to women, and 
Midwifery cases. Jit* Imfiitimario 
HIS Institution is admirably situated in the centre of the 
City, and is at the same time thoroughly secluded; the 
18 buildings are located on high, healthy, and beautiful grounds, 
and altogether it is the most convenient and elegant establishment 
of the kind in the West. Every modern appliance‘has been placed 
in the building; it is heated by steam, and every room contains sta- 
tionary washstand with hot and cold water, with bath-rooms, etc., 
convenient; the ventilation is perfect, and the furniture elegant. 
Invalids will find this a beautiful home with every comfort. Ladies 
expecting to be confined, and those to be treated for diseases 
peculiar to their sex, will receive especial accommodations. 
Trained nurses are in constant attendance, who devote them- 
selves exclusively to the care of the patients, hence the attentions 
are as perfect as possible. 
Prices are graded according to accommodations, and in con- 
nection with the Institution are wards,* into which patients will be 
admitted on terms corresponding with their means. 
Physicians can recommend this Institution to those cases of 
pregnancy who wish to be delivered away from their homes, and 
also to Gynecological cases. 
Patients arriving in the city can go at once to the Infirmary, it 
is but a few squares distant from the Union Depot. 
The Medical Staff consists of 
Dr. G. M. B. MAUGHS, 
Professor of Midwifery and Diseases of Women, Missouri Medical College 
Chief of Staff and Consulting Surgeon. 
Dr. T. L. PAPIN, 
Professor of Diseases of Women at the Missouri Medical College, 
Attending Physician and Surgeon. 
—AND— 
Dr. M. YARNALL, 
Adjunct to the Chair of Midwifery and Diseases of Women, Missouri 
Medical College, Attending Physician and Surgeon. 
WITH A CORPS OF ASSISTANTS. 
All information of a Medical nature will receive immediate 
attention by addressing Drs. PAPIN & YARNALL, No. 1601 
Washington Avenue, St. Louis, Mo. ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
ESTABLISHED 185S. 
USUB & 
Manufacturers of and Wholesale and Retail Dealers in 
Surgical. Instruments, Apparatus, 
BRACES, TRUSSES, 
DENTAL INSTRUMENTS, APPARATUS, AND FURNISHINGS, 
MEDICAL, SURGICAL AND DENTAL BOOKS, ETC. 
NO. 319 NORTH FIFTH STREET., 
(in mercantile library building.) 
Where they have opened a greatly increased Stock of the above articles which they will 
sell for Cash as low as the Eastern manufacturers. 
Parties ordering may rely on getting suited, or the goods may be returned. 
MANUFACTURERS OF 
LESLIE’S IMPROVED 
PHYSICIAN’S 
(Patented, March 21, 1871.) 
The most complete, compact and durable 
bags in the market, also the cheapest. 
We give special attention to the application 
of trusses. 
Send for Descriptive Circnal, 
Address Orders, 
A. M. LESLIE & CO., 
319 NorthFifth Street, 
st. louis, nvno. ST. LOUIS CLINICAL RECORD. 
TIE ST. LOUIS COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 
ANNOUNCEMENT. 
1877-1878. 
PECAMUT OIL. 
The St Louis College of Pharmacy will commence its 
regular course of instruction on Monday, October 8th, 1877, 
and continue to March 8th. 1878 
The instruction in this college for the session of 1877-’78 
will, as usual, embrace the branches of Chemistry, Materia 
Medica and Pharmacy. 
The Trustees have endeavored to put this college in a con- 
dition to afford the means for a thorough pharmaceutical 
education, and its steady growth in prosperity and influence 
shows their efforts are being ully appreciated. 
A Laboratory Course has been established and will be de- 
voted to chemical experiments and the examination of such 
pharmaceutical products as are usually obtained from the 
manufacturer. 
OFFICERS. 
President, Char 11s Bang; Vice-President, E. E. Shendal; 
Secretary, Edmund P. .Walsh; Assistant Secretary, H. E. 
Ahlbrandt; Treasurer, Charles L. Lips; Board of Trustees, 
M. W. Alexander, President, F. VV. Sennewaid George 
Ude, H. E. Ahlbrandt, F. X. Crawley. 
FACULTY. 
Theodore Fay, M. D., Professor of Chemistry; Otto A. 
Wall, M. D., Professor of Materia Medica; James M. 
Good, Professor of Pharmacy and Dean of the Faculty. 
FEES. 
Every student must obtain his matriculation ticket and 
tickets for the course from the Treasurer of the College. 
A matriculation ticket will be required for every session. 
The fee will be charged but once. 
'■ Matriculation, - - - - - $2 00 
Tickets tor the session, - - 30 00 
“ “ Laboratory Course, - 10 00 
Graduating Fee, - ' - 5 00 
For prospectus and additional particulars, address 
J. M. GOOD, 
2136 Clark avenue, St. Louis, Mo. 
According to the latest investigations made 
by Dr. Louis Bauer, and others, this prepara- 
tion has been found to be a most efficacious 
REMEDY FOR BURNS. 
When applied to the injured surface it imme- 
diately relieves the intense pain and covers the 
surface with a protective film which effectu- 
ally EXCLUDES THE AIR. 
In addition to its qualities as a surgical 
dressing, it is undoubtedly 
THE BEST SALAD OIL KNOWN. 
Its freshness and purity, which are guaran- 
teed, should recommend it above all others to 
every plrysician and sanitarian. 
Manufactured by the BELLEVILLE OIL 
WORKS. 
All orders should be addressed : 
G. WOLTMAN, Agent, 
5 N. Second street, St. Louis, Mo. 
Missouri Medical. College, it. Louis, Mo. 
Cor. Twenty-Third Street and Christy Avenue. 
The Thirty-Seventh Regular Session of this institution will begin on Monday, October 1,1877, and wil 
continue five months. 
The Preliminary lectures will begin on Monday, September 10,1877, and continue until the opening 
of the Regular Session. 
W. M. McPHEETERS, M. D., Emeritus Professor of Materia Medica. 
JNO. S. MOORE, M. D., Emeritus Professor of the Principles and Practice of Medicine. 
ZE-A-OTTZL/TltT: 
G. M. B. MAUGHS, M. D., 
Professor of Obstetrics and Diseases of Women. 
P. GERVAIS ROBINSON, M. D., 
Professor of the Principles and Practice of Medicine 
and Clinical Medicine, and Dean of 
the Faculty. 
A. P. LANKFORD, M. D., 
Professor of Surgery and Clinical Surgery. 
JEROME K. BAUDUY, M. D., 
Professor of Diseases of the Nervous System, and 
Clinical Medicine. 
CHAS. E. MICHEL, M. D., 
Professor of Histology and Diseases of the Eye. 
T. L. PAPIN, M. D., 
Clinical Professor of Gynaecology. 
H. TUHOLSKE, M. D., 
Professor of Anatomy and Clinical Professor of Skin 
Diseases. 
O. A. WALL, M. D., Ph. G., 
Professor of Chemistry and Pharmacy. 
CHAS. A. TODD, M. D., 
Professor of Physiology and Diseases of the Ear 
and Throat. 
J. P. KINGSLEY, M. D., 
Professor of Materia Medica, Therapeutics, and Dis 
eases of Children. 
H. TUHOLSKE, M. D., 
Demonstrator of Anatomy. 
PEES 
For the Professors*’ ’tickets $50 00 
Matriculation (paid but once) 5 00 
Demonstrator of Anatomy A 10 00 
Graduation 25 00 
For the Annual Circular and Catalogue, giving regulations for graduation and other information 
Address: P GEE VAIS RQBINSON, M. D., Dean. m 
1523 Olive Street, St. Louis.