REPORT OF AN ACTION FOR A LIBEL, BROUGHT BT Dr. BENJAMIN RUSH, AGAINST WILLIAM COBBETT, In the Supreme Court of Pennfylvania, December term, 1799, for certain defamatory publications in a ncwf-paper, entitled Porcupine's Gazette^ OF WHICH THE SAID WILLIAM COBBETT WAS EDITOR. [VJKW IX SHORTHAND Br JLT is my duty to open this caufe to you on the part of the plaintiff, Dr. Rufh. In difcharging this duty I fhall beg leave to extend it Somewhat beyond its ufual limits in ordinary cafes. I fhall not be con- tent with merely reading the declaration to you, and ftating the points ef evidence by which it will be maintained ; but fhall alfo take the Eberty of opening to you the views and difpofitions with which this action has been brought, and fome of the leading principles on which it will be fupported. The action now before you is an action of flander, brought by Dr. Benjamin Rufh, who has long been a diftinguittied ornament of our city, againfl William Cobbett, the printer and publifher of a newfpaper under the name of Poratpine's Gazette. It will eafily be imagined that no flight caufe could bring a man of Dr. Rufh's character into this^ or any other competition, with a man of William Cobbett's character. —Dr. Rufli is as well known for his peaceful habits and his amiable manners, as William Cobbett is for his difocial malignant difpofition aaid inveterate hate—While the one may well be termed the friend of humanity, the other has labored hard to be confidered, bostis buman't generis—It is not then to indulge a fondnefs for controverfy—It is not to gratify unfocial, litigious or revengeful difpofitions, for no fuch fend a place in his heart, that Dr. Rufh now prefents himfelf before the tribunal of his county, demanding juflice for barbarous and unprovok- ed injuries, and requiring that protection of an honefl reputation which the law guarantees to every citizen—He comes here impreffed with high duties—To the laws of his country he owes a duty, that they fhall not be violated;—to his fellow citizens he owes a duty to bring to punilhment, and, if poffible, fupprefs an abandoned and dangerous offender, who tramples over truth, decency and charact- er with a tiger's flride, and affaults with venomous fury the moft facred bands of focial order and peace; the mofl endearing ties of private life and happinefs—To himself and his family, he owes a duty of protection, which fhould never he difregarded—let the father of a family affert the honor and purity that it defcend not as a fhame upon his children.—Let the hufband preferve the tender feelings of a wife from iniult, and her affections from the deep wounds of. public re- proach. On this high and dignified ground, Dr. Rufli flands before you —He appeals to his country in firm confidence in its juflice, and it is your province, Gentlemen, to admin ifter that juflice—you are to ascer- tain the fecurity in which a citizen of Pennfylvania holds his good name, and to fanction or to check the ravages of defamation—1 his day we are to know whether character is deemed a valuable and facred poffeflion among us, in which we have a perfect and inviolable right, or IMPORTANT TRIAL. or whether it is to be the mere fport and play-thing of malicious ridi- cule and vulgar wit, the undefended victim of affaffinating malevo* lence ; we are now to know if honor and virtue are known and refpect- ed here ; if a fair and unimpreached life, of above fifty years, fpent in im- portant public ferv»ces, and the conftant exercife of private virtues, has a good claim to protection from premeditated ruin, and fhall not fue for redrefs in vain. Ihe courts ..of juftice are fo often harraffed with actions of flander, brought for trifling or revengeful caufes, originating in paffion, and ending in repentance,—founded on the quarrels of children, or the un- meaning intemperance of harmlefs old women, that they have fallen into fome kind of difrepute, and loft much of that importance, which the law and good reafon attaches to them, when properly founded.—In fact, it feldom happens, that the kind of flander which the law fo fe- rioufly contemplates, occurs—The offence is fo enormous, fo deflitute of palliation or defence, fo unworthy, fo low and deteflable, the penal- ty fo exemplary, that few men are found regardlefs enough of focial order and decency, or fufficiently outrageous and audacious to commit it. But when fuch a cafe does occur, it rifes in terrible pre-eminence above the multitude of actions for defamation which throng the dockets and difgrace the remedy.—When an offender is found hardy enough to affault the facred fortrefs of reputation, and ftrive to poftrate it in the dull; hardy enough to brave the vengeance denounced againfl him hy God and man, he fhould be flruck with dreadful and fpeedy juftice, andfland a blighted picture of ruin and infamy, an awful leffon to de- pravity and vice.—Such an offender, we affert, is William Cobbett; and if fuch an offender we fhew him to be, we truft thatfuchapunifh- naent awaits him.— [Here Mr. Hopkinfon read the declaration.] You obferve, Gentlemen, that the controverfy between the plain- tiff and defendant in this caufe, does not originate in any difpute a- bout property ; it is a queflion of Character. And, as in its ef- fence, it differs from fuits on queftions of property, fo inuft it in its mode of treatment, and in its objects of enquiry—While the defen- dant be permitted to a certain extent to fcrutinize and inveftigate tbe character and conduct of the plaintiff (to which inveftigation Dr. Rufli moft cheerfully offers himfelf) we fhall alfo claim a right of examin- ing or obferving upon, to a certain extent, the character and conduct of the defendant.—His character, as far as relates to his occupation of a printer and publifher ; and his conduct, as far as relates to the ge- neral management of his newfpaper, are furely proper objects of ob- fervation at Laft—Nothing can be more evident ; nothing moie rea- fonable. If the general character of his prefs is that of decency, of tendernefs for reputation, of candor, liberality and truth, and he ha$ now, as if by accident, fallen into perfonal defamation, it will certain- ly be urged by his counfel, as a powerful extenuation of his offence, as a flrong argument to induce you to believe that this fingle devia- tion is error, and not crime, is ignorance and not malignity—ihe plea would moll juftly, hold a powerful iufiuence over your judgments: and although *&&: IMPORTANT TRIAL. although in the flridt eye of the law, the only queflion in this action is on the fpecific charge of flander, exhibited in the declaration, yet the conflruction of thofe charges—the quo animo or difpofition with which the offenfive paragraphs were written and publittied, will depend much on the general character and conduct of the defendant as a prin- ter, and will have a ftrong influence over the verdict of an equitable jUT- Permit me gentlemen one further explanation—Parties have in our country, become wrought up to fuch illiberal fury, that eveiy action of a man's life, from the mufl important to the mofl obfcure and trifl- ing is traced to party motives and party principles—His attachments and his enmities—his connexions in bufinefs or otherwife, nay almoft the color of the cloth he wears, and the fpecies of diet he feeds on, are aicribed to his party and political principles—This is an unhappy ftate of things—Were I of the party to whom it has happened the defend- ant has oppofed himfelf—I mould expect that all I fhall now or ever fay againfl this man, would by many of my fellow-citizens, perhaps by you ger.tlemen, be deemed to be the mere vengeance of party fpirit,^ the unmanly gratification of political hatred—-But my opinions of this man have ever, even from the commencement of his extraordinary ca- reer, been the fame ; and are now, as they always have been, honefl, confident, and confcientious—My political character depends not in the flighted degree, upon his recommendation or his cenfure—I have had both ; 1 have regarded neither—Doubtlefs his dark and virulent fpirit prepares ibme attack, which his infufferable arrogance informs him will be formidable and deftructive to lawyers, court and jury, that fhall dare to do b:m justice. For myfelf I declare, if the declaration be neceffary, that there is not in the bounds of creation that thing fo feeble or fo vile that I fhould hold it in greater contempt than the refentment of Wil- liam Cobbett ; and, I will anfwer that you will not be driven from your duty or your oaths, by a il-urof being placed on his black list. He has " indeed, the unquenchable and vindictive fpirit of an inquifitcr, but wanting all power, it is harmlels and contemptible—The ridiculous vanity of this man, and his ignorance of his true situation in this country and of the kind cf va!ue er use that has been put upon him, has lead him into an opinion that his voice is the voice of fate, either with regard to public meafures and character, or to private reputation. Ihis however is an error which it lies with the public to correct ; and tluy will find their intereft and their honor, deeply concerned in doing it ipeedily and effectually. God forbid that my country fhould have funk f.) low, that an oppcfition to fuch a wretch as this, will be deem- ed unfriendly^ to our government. When tempefts agitate the ocean to its foundation, and rock it in convuhions, numerous noxious animals are thrown up, v.hich would otherwife never have feen the light ; fo in a troubled ftate of things, wretches are call up from the veiy dregs and flime of the community, who, in more happy times, would have li- ved and rotttd in obicurkv. 'i he attack made on Dr. Rutti is of the mofl deadly and violent kud that pubce could invent, or abandoned depravity execute—He is accufed IMPORTANT TRIAL. scoffed of murder, of deflroying the lives of his fellow citizens, in a time of dreadful calamity—It is then fair and neceffary to enquire— i. What was the conduct of Doctor Rutti during that calamity—has it merited reproach or applaufe—If the former, the offence of W. C. is extenuated, though not juftified; if the latter, it is aggra- vated beyond all example. a. What inducement or motive had W. C. for this attack—If a de* fire to inform the public mind on an intercfting fubject, his offence is extenuated, but not juftified—if private and political malice, it is aggravated. Dr. Rufli's reputation is not confined to the narrow circle of his pa- tients, nor his applaufe to the clamours of old women andnurfes. His fame has fpread as extenfively as our commerce. He has added a frefh and a blooming-laurel to the head of American genius—he has done much to refcue the American name from obloquy and contempt, which fome of the proud Philofophers of Europe would call upon us, ranking us as inferior to themfelves in the Gentlemen, and the hope of tbe juftice that you will adminifter, may have been the guardian angels of the defendant. To conclude—Volumes need not be unfolded to inform you, Gentle- men, what flander is. It is onneceffary to difgorge our libraries upon you to fhew what forms of words have or have not been deemed action- able by other courts. Afk the honefty of your own hearts, confult the light of your own underftandings, and let it be anfwered whether in a ftate of civilized fociety, w here the actions of men are amenable to government and to law ; where protection is pledged to the unoffend- ing, and rediefs to the injured, an Outrageous member of that fociety, in the mere fport of wanton wickednefs, may attack with malignant and unprovoked virulence, the peace of another; may deftroy that good reputation, which the unceafing merit of many years, and the labors of countlefs hours of toil, which, indeed, a whole life fpent in public fervice and unblemifhed private virtue, had accumulated; may ttiffufe mortification and pain through an amiable family; may fnatch from the father the bread with which he would feed his children ; may be guilty of thefe enormities, may purfue and glory in them, and owe no rediefs to the bleeding victim of his malice, no expiation to the in- fulted juftice of the country—The honefty of your hearts will fwcll with virtuous indignation againft a wretch fo loft and vile; the light of your underftandings will readily inform you, that the government Juid law where fuch things are tolerated, muft very foon fall into me- rited contempt ; that the fociety w here they prevail, hangs but loofe- ly together, and muft fpeedily diffolve into anarchy and mifery. If the injured feek in vain, for redrefs; if the promifed protection to our lives, property and reputation) is but a dead letter, a cruel jeft ; if the triumphant defpoiler is to go laughing from your courts, and the prayer of the injured be rejected, what is the ir.evital/.e cenfequence ? An immediate, nay, a juftifiable refort to private vengeance for pri- vate wrongs * an immediate and a neceffary introduction of murder and affaffmation. I feel and you feel that no mail has a right from D God, IMPORTANT TRIAL. GcJ, from,Nature, or from Law, to injure us without juft retribution* I d:fcover that that retribution is not to be expected from the judice of my country; that he that injuries is borne off in triumph, and he thit c m/l.tins is laughed to fcorn.- 1 he alternative is obvious and inevitable. To myfelf and my own exertions I mud apply for that judice which my country idly promifes and (hamefully denies. If fuch damages are not given, then, in this cafe, as will check fuch offences, as will convince your fellow-citizens, that this is the place where judice is fully adminiftered,*'and the injused fiusiic.l, you take upon yourfelves all the dreadful confequences that :.r;y toll vv. Will I give credit to my government; will I call my- fclf protected by it, becaufe 1 can recover a debt of 20 (hillings by its authority, or obtain poffeffion of an acre cf land, while I am denied the peaceable pi-rlliit of an honorable and ufeful profeffior., and the en- joyment of an honed and well-earr.cd reputation ; while the feelings of myfelf and my family are given up as a facrifice to wanton and malig- nant defamation. Let me call upon you, thenj gentlemen, by t'ae juft heavens, to confider this as no common cafe. Let me call upon ycu to feel yourfelves entrufled with one of the moft important decifions that has ever yet been fubmitted to any court in any country. By your decifion we dandor fall. By your decifion is every man to know on what tenure he holds his character and happinefs. By your deci- fion the bafe and Iawlefs aie to be taught fubordination, and the good citizen to hold his juft rank and fafety in fociety. By your decifion, the honor and dignity of this your higheft tribunal of juftice, the re-< ipectability of your government, and the character of your country are tb be vindicated or lod. The injured father of an amiable family^ the worthy citizen, the ufeful philofopher now fues before you—Pro- feffional fcience implores that countenance and protection without which the mud wither and die—-Virtue, bleeding at every pore, calls for juftice on her defpoiler, and the anxious heart of every honed man pants with impatience to meet in you, THE DEFENDERS OF VIRTUE, AND THE SCOURGERS OF VICE. 'LOmiffion in Mr. Hopkinfon's fpeech:—in page 12, line 15, after the word things—read, " and the defendant has done much to pro- duce them." TESTIMONY. Dr. JAMES MEASE, V\ AS then called, who depofed upon his oath, that about the middle of April, 1798, while he refided at the Marine Hofpital, Mr. Cobbett came d„wn to the Hofpital with a Capt. Young Huibands, who came to fee a man that was landed from on board his fhip, with a rhronical difeafe. While the. Captain went to fee the man, Mr. Cob- bett remained in llw parlor with thewitnefs; coi.v^rfation being in- troduced IMPORTANT TRIAL, troduced about Dr. Rufh's difpute with Cobbett, the defendant rofo upon his feet, ar.d with much warmth laid " Damn him* be bad better withdraw his cause," the witnefs believed clinching his fid, and he ap- peared much agitated. He continued—"or I will persecute him while living, and his memory after bis death." On which the witnefs told the defendant he was very wrong in his attacks upon Dr. Rufh's me- thod of treatment, for he (Dr. Meafe) was a living witnefs of its effi- cacy, and in his practice he had found it, under Providence, the means offaving hundreds, and he believed thoufands had beenfaved by the mode of treatment recommended by Dr. Rufli. Mr. Levy—Did he repeat thefe words more than once ? Witnefs—Upon my telling him he was wrong, he repeated, "damn him, let him withdiaw his caufe." -----Did Mr. Cobbett go into any difcuflion of the propriety, or impropriety of the practice ? Witnefs—No. Dr. William Dewees being fworn, Depofed, that a few days after Dr. Rufh bad delivered his eulogium to the fnemory of Dr. Rittenhoufc, he happened to be at the ho ufe of Mr. Cobbett, whom he afked if he had heard the eulogium. The de- fendant anfwered no, but he had read it. I afked him how he liked it ? He anfvered that the doctor had better have confined himfelf to medicine, and have let politics alone. I afked him what difpleafed him in it ? On which he went up flairs and brought down the book, fhowing me the pafl'age hedifliked, but I cannot now recollect what it was. Ha.ing read it, he faid, Damn him, I will attack bim for it.— He did not [\i Cobbett's family phyfician? ----- I cannot tell; I attended his family myfelf, though never in the yellow fever. Mr. Honkinfi.n—Did you ufe Dr. Rufh's practice in Mr. Cobbett's family ? Witnefs.—Yes. Mr. Ingerfkl___Is that practice or fyftem confined to the difcafe call- ed the yellow fever ? Witnefs. By no means. Mr. Rawle. ' How long did you attend Mr. Cobbett's family? Witnefs.—From the return of the citizens in 17.98. IMPORTANT TRIAL. Mr. Ingerfol. Have you been ever recommended by Mr. Cob- bett to any other families fince that period ? Witnefs. Yes frequently. Some converfation here occurred about what was the meaning of " the free ufe of the lancet." Mr. Dewees explained it to be wherever the use of tbe lancet vjos necessary: as inflammatory cases. Mr. Ingerfol. You adopted Dr. Rufh's fyftem generally ? Witnefs. Yes. Dr. Cox, was fworn. He depofed that on the 2d of October, 1797, a gentleman who had juft arrived from the Weft Indies called upon him, and after fome con- verfation told him he was foon going to fail for England ; but wifhed before he went, to fee Peter Porcupine, (the defendant) who had ren, dered himfelf fo celebrated. He afked the witnefs to inform him where he lived; upon which he, (the witnefs) accompanied him to his houfe, having occafionally been in the habit of ftepping into his (hop.—After fome general converfation had paffed, the witnefs expreffed to the de- fendant his difapprobation of his publications refpecting the ufe of the lancet, and refpecting Dr. Rufh in particular, as this remedy had been recommended by him in certain cafes—He replied to my obfervation, faid the witnefs, that his writing could be of very little confequence, or have no effect upon the public mind; I replied that I thought it was impoffible he fhould imagine what he faid, for he muft know that all he wrote muft have a very confiderable effect, particularly at the time the mind of the public was fo diffracted. He returned the fame reply adding that as he was not a phyfician, people would naturally fuppofe that he knew nothing of the fubject. I obfervedto him then, that the effect was certainly produced; he replied that he did not be- lieve he fhould ever have faid fo much on bleeding or mercurials, if Dr. Rufh had not been the author of it. An article entitled THE POTENT QUACK, was then read in, evidence of the defign, and perfiftence of the defendant, from Porcu- pines Gazette, of October 5, 1797, which he introduces in thefe words: [Thefollowing are Mr. Fenno, junior's remarks on Dr. Rush's let- ter to Brown, announcing that he had entered actions against Fenno and me.} Here follows the letter from Fenno's paper. After which the defendant introduces his remarks in thefe words: [7 defy tbe Grand Empiric, aided by all his legion of subaltern quacks% to compose a paragraph like this that closes young Fenno's remarks.—-. These are cutting truths for tbe Doctor.—They leave tbe mark.] The words referred to in the latter part of Fenno's remarks are as follow : " The fact is, and I have before glanced at it, that a loved fcheme of the Doctor's ambition met a rough blow in 1793, and in 1797 a re- petition, which threatens in progrefs to caft the fcheme and its author Into the fhades of obfcurity. This has been effected through thfe medium IMPORTANT TRIAL. medium of the prefs, and the prefs, therefore, is the firlt object whereon his vengeance is to be wreaked.—Confcious as I am, of the pureft motives, and moft upright intentions, I fhall wait with entire compofure the iffue of a trial, which I have no doubt will complete the downfall of quackery and empiricifm: and will at leaft be valuable in one point of view, as it will ferve to fhew on what ground ftands the liberty of the prefs, whether it is in America an empty name, or a valuable reality —whether ti.at to which the country owes every pofleffion of which it can boaft, aye! even its liberty and independence, fhall be trampled under foot by groundlefs profecutions; and all thofe barriers erected by the fpirit of freedom, as entrenchments round poverty and obfcurity, againfl the pride of wealth and the infolence of power, are to be rudely thrult down, and a hberticide medical tribunal eflablifhed on the ruins of reafon and the wrecks of common fenfe." A letter inferted in Porcupine's Gazette of October 6, 1797, was alfo read in evidence which related a cure of the Yellow Fever by a foldier's accidental immerfion in Tar. The editor, William Cobbett, makes the following inferrence : [This seems an odd kind of a remedy ; but I woidd rather Tar with the addition of Feathers, than venture my life against tbe lancet of Dr. Rush. An extract was alfo read in evidence from Horcupine's Gazette of October 20, i"97> The profecution being opened and the evidence to fubflantiate it read, Mr. RAWLE Addreffed the Jury to the following effect: With submission to your Honors, X ftand up, Gentlemen of the Jury, much more impreffed with diffi- culty on account of the extraordinary and unufual manner with which the gentleman who preceded me has thought proper to open hiscau-'-, than of any danger in which my client ftands from the accufations on which this profecution is grounded. It has not fallen to my lot, fince I have had the honour of appear- ing in the character of an advocate, or fince I began my endeavors to obtain a knowledge of the law, to hear fuch ferious animadverfions mad", or fuch ttrong ttigma uled on the character of any man, as that gentleman has ufed in reference to my client, the defendant. I could not help being ftruck with the companion of that addrefs and the publications which it was meant to implicate.—In that comparifon I declare I can perceive none which deals in fo ftrong epithets—none bordering fo much on abufe, as thofe are with which the gentleman has IMPORTANT TRIAL. fcas amufed you. If it were poflible to commit this opening addrela to paper, there would be no difficulty in difcriminating which was moft deferving the appellation of slander—Gentlemen, if you believe the declarations of my opponent, you muft be brought to believe William Cobbett to be the moft insignificant and worthless reptile in creation, and that under the (hap; of a man, he has flalkcd abioad a very monster__that for him, no juftice ought to be had—that he is to be expunged from all ranks of lociety, that he is to remain an eteiv, nal mark for hatred, and courts of Judice are never to confider him as even the object of mercy 1—Mercy, that which we all claim, that which we think we are all entitled to, feems not to be his due ! Gentlemen, even your opinions and your paffions too have been affaulted, and called forth in a manner, which to me, has hitherto been perfectly unknown. This human monfter—this moft unheard of being—every thing that is entitled to the terms of *>//-• and base, has-been reprefented as the deftroyerofthe public peace and happinefs; as the difturber of the harmony of fociety. Bat permit me to fay, that this is not the way to appeal to the juftice of a J-try. Judice is what even this man has a right to de- mand of you, bale as he has been made to appear. You have a right to ftand indifferent to the common received, or reprefented ftate of any man's character, who fhall be brought before you. You are to poffefs no prejudices no opinions—no prepoffeflions. I truft judice will be your only impreffion in the prefent cafe. But although every effort has been ufed to endeavor to excite your prepoffelfion.agai.ilt the defendant, every other fenfation than that of llrict equity, ought to be left at the door, the moment you enter this court. On the contrary, you have heard the Gentleman amufing himfelf, and no doubt, agieeablyentertaining his audience with reprefenting the highly superior character of the Plaintiff;—he is fuperior to men in general—nay any man—he is an angel from Gcd, clothed with every virtue—with every qualification, while Mr. Cobbett is nothing but a dxmon from the infernal regions. With you it is not left to judge of the diftinction, but to you they ftand on equal grounds. Dr. Rufh ftands before you as a refpectable citizen, who has dene much to increafe the good of fociety ; but permit me fay, society have rewarded bim for. it. This is his happinefs, and lam not inclined to fay it is not his defert. While we are entertained with fuch a ftrik- ing and affecting picture of the calamity which has diftreffed our city, and the general diftrefs experienced thereon, we are told that this good angel went from door to door, communicating his affidance freely, but no doubt, every man who fo expofed himfelf, whatever general good ho might adminiIter, received an adequate compenfation. If he has bravely faced death, he has met the lot of his profefiion. The com- mon failor, who has fhipped himfelf on board a veffel of war, might, in the hands of my eloquent opponent, be reprefented as a man who has faced the cannon ball, inured himfelf to the dangers and hard- fhips of the boiflerous ocean, and met danger at every avenue of his calling ; but what would his oratory amount to more, than that otheri did fo, and it was their profeffiou. Dr. Rufli ought to have every merit IMPORTANT TRIAL. merit which he deferves : but let it not be forgotten that Will-aut Cobbett ought to have every merit be deferves, and every privilege to which he is entitled—let him have every cenfure he deferves, and yet, I repeat, both ftand upon equal ground before yuu. Cobbett puts him- felf upon the .iffue, and you are to decide according to evidence, and thus only. Gentlemen, to the declaration filed, we have pleaded not guilty. We are charged with having maliciously written fuch and fuch things, in order to deftroy the good name that Dr. Rufh has heretofore borne a- mong his'fellow-citizens. We deny the malicious part cf the accusa- tion, and to obtain our right, we put ourfelves upon a jury cf our country, and unlefs it can be proved that the publications laid to our charge are of the nature defignated, to wit, malicious, we are entitled to your acquittal in the action. The malice of a libel is collected, in general, either from its neceffa- ly condruction, plainly apparent on the face of a publication, or from fome circumftauces eafily deducible from the nature of the cafe. We have heard, upon the prefent occafion, the teftimony of fome medical gentlemen brought forward, alleging, that at periods fuble- quent to this profecution being entered, the defendant ufed words, tending to fhow that thefe publications proceeded from perfonal ma- lice. To me, the whole of the publications and charges appear to be free from perfonal, private or doniedic malice. How could they iffue from perfonal malevolence ? I afk whether it has been proved, in any cafe, that Cobbett has endeavored to intermeddle with the family con- cerns of Dr. Rufh ? or whether, o* the other hand, the whole of the publications have not been fo far judifiable, in as much as they treat- ed only on a fubject of public enquiry ? Moft true it is that every man has a property in his own reputation—moft true it is that the law has fpread about the reputation of every man all the affiftance poffible; but there is another thing demands your coi.fideration : he who exids in community,hatha property and intered equally valuable in the hap- pinefs, fafcty and peace of that community. To every man, thefe are important confiderations : eveiy man is bound by them, and his own welfare is in them-—every man is punifhable for a neglect of them. It is of confequcnce to a man, that in the fociety he has felected for his refidence, be fhould fee profperity about hb/, otherwife he can have but little hope of profecuting his own means for his own benefit. In order to procure this object, he will exhort all the citizens of the fame fyftem, who enjoy a common caufe with him, to adopt what is goods and leave what is evil. Where fuch have been the efforts of a man, he is undoubtedly entitled to refpect. This principle is confiftent with the confutation or Pennfylvania, Sect. 3. Art. 9. And there exids no law of the ftate or general governments that reftrains a full and free in- vefligation of the merits of any queflion in which the public are inter- eded! If in the courfe of this inve(ligation expreffious are ufed, and obfervations made which mav fall heavy on the concerns of the p:r- ibn about whom he is writing, it is iufficient for the perfon atcufed, if he can fhow that be has not besn guilty of vmtrutlu, tor entered into IMPORTANT TRIAL into the family or moral conneaions of his accufer ; but that he htt only thrown his mite into the public flock of information. Gentlemen, there are few offices in fociety of more public import- ance than that of a phyfician* few on whom fo much depends the hap- pinefs of the community. A good, fkilful, laborious, honefl phyfician, is a very valuable member of fociety. But, on the contrary, an un- Jkilful, avaricious, indolent phyfician deferves, not only public difap*. probation, but, public contempt. Private eompenfation, and public confidence is the furfc reward of the meritorious praditioner ; but you have heard this man's character even exalted above humanity; fuperi- or to humanity indeed muft he be; if in the whole of his extensht practice he never committed fome error j if he never for a moment a- dopted fome miftaken principle; and perhaps tenacioufly, not to fay obftinately adhered to it! Such inflances in every profeffion, in men the mod celebrated we have krown, and 1 prefume fhall continue to know. If on the public labors ot any man in feciety, animadverfton is admiffible, on which can it be fo properly exercifed as on the man in whofe hands, in fome fenfe, is life and death ? Who fo fit an object on whom to exercife the liberty of the prefs ? I fincerely trufl we ne^ ver fhall fee the day when any public character, how efpecial foever the qualifications of his head or heart, or how bad foever, as to ex- clude him from enjoying the common advantages of his good charac- ter, cr fecure him from juft odium for his reprehentible donduct, and I trufl we never fhall fee the time when any man, however bafe his character may be, fhould be denied that juflice which our conflitution and laws make the common right oT all men. Gentlemen, the Fever of 1793, it is well remembered, was truly ferious and awful, adifeafe then almoft unknown among us, fo that the mofl wife was at a lots how to act. Different modes of treatment, and different experiments were made, but notwithftanding great numbers deferted the city, and notwithftanding the utmoft exertions and inge- nuity of the Phyficians, about one fourth of the people who remained died. Of the number who remained D--. Rufh was one. I need only appeal to your recollections how unlimited were the publications which fucceeded that fever, fo unaccountable and various were the attacks, and fo difficult and various the modes of treatment, that it was conh> dered a juftifiable fubject of public difcuffion. To fome of thefe pub- lications I might appeal, and fhew you how ftrong, how acrimonicus was the language, ufed even between the members of that learned pro- feffiou. The fubject continued thus, for a long time a fubject of pub- lic controverfy, and much warmth was ufed. Finally, by the inter- pofition of divine Providence, more than the united attempts of men, thediforder difappeared, and for four years we happily remained free from its dreadful ravages, conceiving ourfelves quite fecure from its return. However it again made its appearance in 1797. What was a fubject of fo much public difcuffion in 1793* was relumed in the fubfequent attack, at that time others, befides the unfortunate defend- ant, who, it appears to me, is fufficiently paid for his temerity by the arcufations brought againd him, others took the liberty to declare, as all mankind ought to encourage them to do, what their opinions were IMPORTANT TkiAL. of the topic. At this period we find iffue from the prefs of Mr. Cobbett what it has been thought proper to ground this profecution on—not for affailing the private character of Dr. Rufh ; not tearing open his connections, nor meddling with his family concerns, but for difcufs- ing a public quedion, in fuch a manner as others had thought proper to do before him, and were then doing. The topics of public difcuf- fion were the free ufe of the lancet, and mercurial purges. And who fo natural, fo likely to be attacked as the perfon who was well known to be at the head of this fyftem of treatment, a fyftem peculiarly adopt- ed and recommended by Dr. Rufh, and followed by his pupils. Hence the name of Dr. Rufli, and the ufe of bleeding and Mercury in the Yellow Fever came into public notice at one period. We know that the two learned bodies in this city, who were incorporated for the purpofe of eftablifhing public confidence, by an unanimity of fyftem, (I refer to the academy of medicine and the college of Phyficians)—* Thofe two bodies eftablifhed different fyftems in the treatment of this difeafe. This certainly gave to Mr. Cobbett, allowing that he is a man entitled to the ufe of his faculty of reafon, ar.d the common pri- vilege enjoyed in the United States, this furely gives to him the pri- vilege of expreffing his opinion, as applicable, not barely to the prin- ciple, but to the practice ufed: and what might encourage him the more, he thought that whatever he might advance, as appeared in the evidence, could do no injury, not being a medical man himfelf, and if he was wrong he fhould only expofe his ignorance, which he was willing to hazard, hoping however that he might eventually do good. Doctor Rufh was at that time a very public character, and exercifing an important public function: Mr. Cobbett was unqueflkmably exer- cifing his conftitutional right to do at that time, what others did, to examine his public tranfadtions, in which he thought he was on the fide of humanity.—Sappofe we fe« an individual, or a number of per- fons running headlong towards a precipice, down which they muft ine- vitably fall, fhall I be blamed if I fay to them flop, liften not to the man who advifed you to take that road: I will give you folid advice, go the other way. They efcape the danger, and I have done my duty. Gentlemen, however the conduct of Mr. Cobbett may appear in the fubfcquent part, it is plain that the fyftem eftablifhed by Dr. Rufh, has not produced all the good effects he wifhed. [Mr. Rawle here read a letter written in Auguft 1798 from Drs. Phytic and Cooper at the hofpital, requefling advice in cafes of the fe- ver, to which Dr. Rufh wrote an anfwer acknowledging the uncertainty of any precife method of treatment in all cafes, and that bleeding and mercurials were not, in every ftage, and every appearance of the fever, a proper mode of treatment. He concludes, acknowledging the dif- ficulties thofe Phyficians had to meet, fcarcely ever having an opportu- nity of commencing their treatment until an advanced ftate of the dif- eafe, much of the fuccefs in which, depended on a particular hour of application. Some, he faid, " in 1797 he occafionally lod, even after the application of bleeding and mercurials.]—From which it appears that the new fyftem of treatment, was net the infalliable cure which 1 E was IMPORTANT TRIAL. was fuppofed. But whether this medicin? was found to anfwer the Doctor's expectation, I know not, my object is to prove that there was more than one method of counteracting thatdifeafe, and that it was tbe bufinefs of thofe who had die misfortune to be expofed to the danger, to make their obfervations, with feedom on thofe various m< des, as much as experiment was the privilege of the practitioners. I take the principle of the Law to be, that your minds fhould be well fatisfied, either from an internal evidence of tbe publication, or from concomitant circumstances, that tbe writer had a malicious intent. This principle is well eflabhfhed in the books: fee Buller's Nifi Prius p. 8. \\ here it is plain that the git of the expreffion muft be malice, in order to con- ftitute it a crime in the eye of the law. And again p. 110. fame book " the words muft be malicious, as well as falfe, to fupport an action for flander." If it is juftifiable to fhow that words ufed with a fincere and liberal intention, in order to prevent mifchief, is harmlefs, is not that man jultifiable, who feeing a dangerous fyftem likely to predo- minate, w ho prevents, as much as lies in his power, that fyftem being put into action ? This I confider as a very effential ground of our de- fence. We contend that Mr. Cobbett exercifed a right given him by the laAvs and Conflitution of this State ; no law required him to publifh, but he had liberty fo to do, and he is far from deferving that odium with which he is now fligmatized. That men's language, and modes of expreffion will differ according to their talents and education, I prefume you will all allow. When I fay this, I hope you vill not conceive me to mean that the whole of this man's merit confifted in the fcurrility with which he treated his opponent. Here I may jufti- fiably apply the obfervation of Dr. Johnfon, that " thofe who think profoundly will exprefs themfelves differently from the common accep- tation.'' This profundity cf thought could not be fuppofed to be an attribute of my client; no doubt, he fpoke from his momentary fenfa- tions. But for communicating thefe obfervations to the public, is the law to be appealed to in this fblemn and expreflive manner? Is the flrong arm cf juftice to be called up, becaufe the little forms of focie- ty are fuppofed to be attacked by an iiadividual I No, fuch is not the fixed principle of the law, nor of common judice. The law will be found to ftate it as a principle, that in no inftance where the party has gone wrong through the impulfe cf paffion—beyond the bounds of drier decency and propiiety, that for this caufe alor.e, the plaintiff is to recover damages. Salkeld 693 fays, that "to fay a juftice is a fool, an afs, a blockhead, or a buffiehead, is not indictable, unlefs the words are in themfelves fuch as fhow an intention to deprive the party get- ting h.s livelihood." Thefe are rough expreffions, but it appears not indictable. [Some diftinction was here remarked by the court to exift between words that are "indictable," and words that are "actionable."] Mr. Ra.vle contended that unlefs the party could fhow that he had fudained fome injury by the ufing of the words, no damages couhl be laid ; but he obferved that their opponents had not thought proper tf prove any fpecial damages, from which it muft. be deducted by a jury that none were fuftajued. In IMPORTANT TRIAL. In difcuffing a matter of public intereft, the amount of damages, if the juy fhould think proper to find fijr the plaintiff, muft depend on the fituation and ability of the perfon who undertook to difcufs it. Belides, the powers of men's minds are not ah.ays alike. Truth is frequently attacked by ridicule, much lets can we expect a public pro- feffion to remain exempt. Pope fays " Safe from tbe Bar, tbe Pulpit and tbe Throne, " But truth is touco'd by " ridicule" alone." The enquiry always is in the cafe of fcandal. " Is it a matter in which the interefts of the nation are implicated r" If it is not; if it is a matter of public difcuffion, as in the p-efe.? : cafe, it has ever been confide red as harmlefs, though perhaps poignant ridicule. We find nothing in the declaration but words which relate to the public prac- tice and medical fyftem of Dr. Rufh. We were told that proofs of the malicious defign of our client would be produced ; Ave have heard the evidence of three perfons brought here to prove, the malice affert- ed. But neither of them has related an item whereupon to found that accufation. A clear proof to me, and muft be to you, Gentlemen, that no malicious defign, a temper and difpofitbn abiblutely neceffary to the conviction of the defendant—no malicious defign did exift. The effort made to fupport malice from the evidence of Dr. DeAvees, refpecting the eulogium on Dr. Rittenhoufe, to me, is very feeble; for, from the words of the witnefs and the concomitant circumftances, it is clear the attack was to be of a political nature, on account of po- litical principles publicly delivered. Change it, and fay it Avas to be againfl the man, it mult be proved to haA'e been carried into execution. Another gentleman relates a converfation AvithMr. Cobbett in Oct. 1798, about the confequences of his publications Mr. Cobbett then declared that he did not think his writing could have any effect, and at laft he declares that he fhould not have attacked the practice of Dr. Rufh, if the Doctor had not been the author of it. The true meaning of that expreffion, it will be difficult for you to afcertai.n : but if you underftand it not fully, you are not to receive the leaft im- preffion from it. Perhaps it was this: if it was an obfeure practiti- oner, a man of no note, it would not be worth my notice. But mark the difference. If a man, fuch as the Doctor has been held up to you, __not only the firft in America, but almoft, if not quite, in the whole univerfe; fuch a man inculcates principles, and draws others into the adoption of them : a new fyftem in the hands of fuch a man merited Mr. Cobbett's attention, in his editorial capacity; and I think he was judicable in thinking him a proper perfon for attack. Gemkmen, there mud be fomething more than mere fuggeftion ; there muft be fometl.ing to prove the vifcioiity of the Avritings; or you mud give a verdict for the defendant. Our client is abfent, he has retted his cafe with you to give your decifion upon his rights of publication; we claim tint right for bun, a*right which every free man is entitled to at your hands, -ana tor kirn, I think we flulf not claim cf you in vain. The farther exami- "*" nation IMPORTANT TRIAL. nation into the publications and the evidences produced, I fhall leave to my colleagues, who I have no doubt will be able to prove to you that no fuch malice as is charged, is intended or is any way in- cluded. I will only remind you of one apparent inconfiftency in the reafoning of our opponent; If the fyftem and practice of Dr. Rufli has been fo ufeful, fo infallible, as you have been made to fuppofe, in order that you may give judgment for large damages, it is natural to fuppofe that the feeble efforts of Mr. Cobbett could net deftroy his celebrity, or injure that fyftem, and therefore it could be but little or no offence for him to exprefs his opinion. With you I fhall leave the weight of my arguments; Ave have no evidence to produce, but I trufl you will fee the juftice of our defence. Hon. Mr. HARPER. Gentlemen of tbe Jury, X. HE queflion in this cafe is not whether the plaintiff is a phyfician of eminence, a man of worth, a peaceable citizen, a good father, or a tender hufband,—was this the point to be difcufled, we mufl fhrink from the oppofition, and alloAV the claim to be in his favor, nor is it whether our client has offended againfl decorum, and every principle of civility and good manners,—or it would be equally difficult to make out a defence. The queflion is, whether, in thefe publications, con- tained in the declaration, which has been read, the defendant was ac- tuated by a defign to injure Dr. Rufh in his perfonal character, or to injure him as a phyfician, or to run down and laugh out of counte- nance a practice which he confidered would have a mifchievous ten- dency. Gentlemen as you muft be of one or the other of thefe opi- nions, your verdia mufl be for the plaintiff or for the defendant: If from the Avhole of the teftiroony you fhould be of opinion that the de- fendant, in making thefe publications, was induced merely bv a defire to overthrow a fyftem of medicine which he thought mifchievous, you are bound to give him your verdia. And, why? Becaufe this acti- on is brought for the malicious defign with which it is faid he ufed thofe expreffions. What is malice ? Malice in its prefent application muft be an attempt and defign to injure the plaintiff in his perfonal, or in his profeffional charaaer. When this ingredient is not made out, either from its appearance on the very face of the aaion, or by direa inference, the action of flan. der cannot be fupported. This is an obvious and incontrovertable fa&. No man has a right to attack another in his profeffional purfuits, fo as to rob him of the fruits of his induftrious efforts, but every man has a right to attack a ruinous fyftem, and whether a fyftem is ruinous or mifchievous, be who makes the attack, and be alone is to be the, judge, becaufe if I lift my hand againfl a fet of opinions or pradices which I hold to be evil to fociety, I muft firft fuppofe my liberties or privileges, or thofe of fociety to be in danger, before I fhould exercife my freedom of opinion. I IMPORTANT TRIAL. I will admit that if, in the combat of opinions or practices, I throw any unneceffary perfonal refleaions, and attack the individual holding thofe opinions, if I go beyond his opinions, and abufe his perfon ; ,f I go beyond his perfon, and traduce his charaaer, then indeed the pretence that I meant only to attack his opinions, would not avail me in a court of juftice ; it Avould be fuppofed merely a cloak, merely a fallacious excufe, and therefore would fa'nly be aaionable, and fubject me to punirtiment. The queftion, then, will recur whether Willatn Cobbett meant to attack Dr. Rufh's fyftem, or his perfonal and p.o- feffionai charaaer ? If the latter fhould appear to be his deligu, he furely has ftepped beyond due bounds. The utmoft latitude of ad- miflion that I (hall grant in this cafe is, that if attempts are made to bring a phyfician into general difrepute, then the injured party may claim retribution from the laws of his country. Having gune thus far, let us enquire how far thefe ingredients exift in the prefent cafe. Whether there be, in the paragraphs upon which this aaion is-found- ed, any thing from which malice can he fairly and preperly deducted, or whether the only defign of the defendant was to overturn, if he could by argument, that part of the praaice of Dr. Rufh which con- futed in " bleeding" and " purging" in the yellow fever. We will read the paragraphs, compare the evidences with them, and fee whether this difpofition is contained in them. [Mr. H. here read the paragraph of September 19th, 1797.] Before I enter into the examination, I will admit that the fame fludied language which well-bred men ought to ufe, is omitted, and that the fame ftile and decorum is not ufed which, if I Avere to com- bat a public fydem, I fhould think it right to ufe.—Rut are we to Avonder at it? Are we to Avonder that writers, in a controveity, in which they had excited fo much acrimony, even among the members of the facul- ty themfelves, fhould be led too far? Nay, have we not heard it ftrik- ingly exemplified in the condua of the Gentleman who opened this caufe ! Gentlemen in the Legiflature do not always avoid this unbe- coming praaice of perfonal abufe. But although thatfaa Avould not juitify the man, ought Ave not to look Avith fome little excufe upon the author of a newfpaper ? If this confideration ought not to pardon the offence, it ought at leaft to extenuate it. Laying afide Avhat is merely indecorus ; what is merely harfh lan- guage, let us enquire what is the fubftance and meaning, and the total amount of the charges. Having read the article entitled " Medical Puffing," Mr. H. afked if there was any thing like flander in that piece ; if fo, hardly a newf- paper which was printed in the United Stales, but might be made a fubjea of enquiry by a Jury.—I do not, relumed Mr. H. juftify the language J; but Avhat does it amount to? It calls an eminent phyfician a remorfelefs bleeder. What is that? It is that he purfued bleed,ng too far. But have not fome of the mod refpectable medical men faid that it is remorfelefs and deftruaive ? there are fuch. The idea con- veyed is nothing to you ; whether bleeding in his practice, is puttied too far, or Avhether it is not a fubjea of your enquiry ; but whether this man meant more than to expofe that fyftem which was extreme in his view is IMPORTANT TRIAL. is a proper fubjea for your enquiry. Was it not wrong that a ruinous fyftem fhould have been perfifted in, when human life was fo material- ly connected ? This was fo confidered by him, and he thought it his duty to expofe it. I am well convinced that it was not only unbe- coming langua,:/c, but I believe it to be very untrue, but is it a flan- der? No, it is merely unmeaning ribaldry. Suppofe, I fay, a man is in the habit of getting himfelf puffed in the paper: he may be laughed at, but could do nothing in it. He might get himfelf puffed, and yet be a very able phylician. " Blood, blood, they cry more blood." To be lure tiiisls very hyperbolical, but flrip it of its exaggeration, and is it not true ? Was it not common, during that period, for thefe icl-as to be reiterated through the papers and pamphlets of the city day after day? Tbe free use oftbe Icrxit, the free use of tbe lancet, was cu;.dandy repeated by .the medical men in favor of that fyfvm. As to calling a man a fhamelefs filly puff, and in general, the letter of Dr. Tilton, wherein he is called a four wry-faced democrat, I do r>ct kuoAV how it came to be introduced,or what it has to do with an acti- on brought by Dr. Rufh! Ihave heard a very good charaaer of Dr. Tilton, but if he is " a four wry-faced incorrigible democrat," I am lorry foe it. As to'the epithet of " Matter bleeder," I fee no harm in its in- troduction ; it is uo flander, but an high eulogium, railing him to a pre-eminence, rather than giving any abufe. The queflion refpeaing mercurial purges is then introduced, " Is it good for Sans culottifm, Doctor ?" I Avifh it wns, gentlemen, for if fo, it would be a ready cure for a great number of perfons, Avho, I fear, are now utterly incura- ble. Comparing mercury to Sampfon, and (peaking of its ravages, Mr. Harper did not conceive it perfonally applicable to Dr. Rufli, but to the fyikin, Avhich was particularly pointed at in reference to the '• Rufhites." , Not Dr. Rufh but his partizans, which amounted to nothing. Is it flan- der, laid Mr. Harper, to fay to a gentleman, when we contend in another place, (Congrefs Hall) that certain political opinions go to the fubverfion of Government, or in otherinftances ter.d to rcb the country, Stc. No, far ether wife, a great didiiHtion is always held between a man, perfon- ally, and his principles. Miferable would be the times, were it not fo, and much more miferable would it be if Ave could not be permitted to call in queftion the praaice of a phyfician, without being fubjeacd to anexpenfive aaion for flander. The only meaning of thefe words is, that it is a miftaken principle to attach to certain praaice the vir- tue it has not, for that it has occafioned the death of many, rather than recovered them from difeafe. If the words had been that Doaor Rufh killed more than he cured, it would have been aaionable on good grounds, but it is only vaguely the "Rufhites," See. The next paragraph is in 25 September, figned " a tavern keeper." Here we only find Dr. Rufh's name mentioned as having publittied a book on the yellow fever, and his being a great patron of the art of blood-letting. '1 Ins is known to all America and Europe, it has never been denied, but it is not Hinder., It might with propriety be called a piece highly ridiculing the praaice of blood-letting; : I believe it was if IMPORTANT TRIAL. was fo intended—bat fhall fuch a piece of ridicule be made the foun- dation of an aaion of flander ? If fo, fome of the mod admired produc- tions in every age ought to be confidered as danders. Li every age ri- dicule of this ibirt has been ref'orted to, and where it does not run into fcandal it is approved. But 1 fay this doei not, and I know you will fay by your verdict, that it does not run to that length. Mr. Harper then read the article inferted September 26, 1797, which he contended contained nothing injurious to the reputation of Dr. Rufh as a phyfician, nor as a man, nor would it tend in the lead to deprive him of a livelihood, one of which mud be proved in order to fubftantiate the action. As to the terms " potent quack," and '' me- tlical puffer"—the Avords are very indecent, but it is always a principle of obfervation that fuch low, unmeaning libaklry always recoils on its projeaor. Far be it from me to juftify, or even extenuate fuch lan- guage, but that it is no offence in a law vieAv is eafy to prove. Con- tempt is the only punifhment it can have. Next Mr. Harper took" up the article of September 29, 1797, pre- face "a puff equal to Dr. Rufh's." Here Mr. H. faid Avas a puff introduced the moft ridiculous and abfurd which could be conceived, and he called it equal to Dr. Rush's. Surely he faid it was equal, and it could be no flander to fay fo. It Avas veiy indecorous to before, to bring in the name of fo refpeaable a character as Dr. Rufli, when fuch an extravagant piece was introduced, but it did not tend to lef- fen the man in his reputation and fame, and theiefore could be no flan- der. This Spilfbury had invented a remedy to cure impurities of the blood, but- Avas it not a more perfea cure to let out that foul blood ? Certainly fo. The indecent epithet of master Sangrado he could not defend ; it was very unbecoming to apply it to fo refpedtable a cha- raaer. But fuppofe a man was called after in the ftreet by this name, could he fupport an aaion for flander upon it? No, actions of flander are net to be brought for abuse but injury.— i his Sangradj is mentioned in a novel as a famous quack, who ufed to take blood ai.d give water to his patients until he brought them to the giave. Mr. Harper again contended, that from the Avhole turn of the evi- dence it was clear that not the man, but the mode of praaice, which he confidered dangerous, Avas the object cf attack. He then took up the article inferted in Porcupine's Gazette, Oct. 5, 1797, extraa^d from Fenno's Gazette, fubtequent to the action being en.cred, which he faid, the greater part of it, was only a.i extcnuatic^, becaufe it ex- prefsly fays, chat none of the paragraphs made the foundation cf the aaion, Avere meant more than to combat " an erroneous fyftem." This printer orfidered himfelf to be uujufUy availed by the aaion, and therefore it is no wonder if the fublequent publications are acrimonious ; but is this a proof of his criminality in the fird inttance? E.en thofe fubtequent publications go principally to the fyftem,-and fay very l.t- tle about the man himfelf. If the malice was intended at the tir.v he ufhered the publications for which he was iued, he :.-ould not have waited to difpl.-iy it in the fouire ones—Gentlemen, the fublequent jdtblicutions cannot fupport the action, as they took place fince the aaion AYas commenced, a.*d iio.v only from the re.cntm.eut natural to IMPORTANT TRIAL. a man who confidered himfelf unjuftly profecuted ; they cannot there- fore be called as a proof of the motive with which the firft were written, except the malice had been plainly expreffed in them, which is not the cafe. Verbal teftimony is next produced : three gentlemen of retpedtabi- lity for their age, appear in court, but I am forry the action could not be fupported without reforting to private conventions, peihaps ufed in confidence, and certainly without a view of its going farther than the fpot -..here it was ufed. This particularly referred to the two fird. But it may be laudable in the gentlemen to ccme and volun- teer themfelves in fupport of a man, their friend and patron, whom they confider affailed. I will admit that the expreffions ufed by the defendant, was proof of his vindictive fpirit, and were very improper, but 1 afk what influence it can have on the aaion now before you ? This ftrong refentment was in confequence of his being fued by Dr. Ruih. If it proves any thing, it is that the defendant was certain of the mjuftice of the aaion, he having, legally fpeaking, done no harm, at Avhich his mind revolted, and being very much agitated at the men- tion of the fuit by Dr. Meafe, the ebullition of his inflamed mind burft forth into an unwarrantable expreffion. Is this the mark of malice, fettled, cool, deliberate malice ? Malice fpeaks lefs and does more, than is apparent in any part of the defendant's conduct. You may call him ill tempered, unamiable, harfh, Sec. if you pleafe; in fo doing you do him juftice, but to call an hafly expreffion, malice, is a perverfion of terms. The teftimony of Dr. DeAvees amounts to lefs than the laft. The defendant was difpleafed at certain paffages in an eulogium fpoken by Dr. Rufh, and he faid the Doaor had better have confined himfelf to medicine. This to be fore was very impertinent, for he !*ad nothing to do with it; but it was not criminal. What be meant by its being " too republican" does net appear. I have read it, and with pleafure; but he or any man certainly had a right to find fault with it, if they dilliked it. He farther faid he would attack the Doaor about it. Does this mean that he Avould 6ommence a vii.diaive attack upon the Doctor, and endeavor to wound him in his reputation or prcfeffion ? No, gentlemen, this is not to be inferred. It was a determination to attack the principle advanced, to expefe it to ridicule, fo that it fhould not have the effect which it was intended to have. It could not pof- fibly refer to any attack on bis bufinefs, and therefore cannot flamp a malicious intent upon Avords ufed for another purpofe fo long after- wards. It appears that Mr. Cobbett did afterwards employ Dr. DeAvees in his family, and recommended him to fome of his friends. I am very glad of it, I believe him to have merited that recommendation, but this is no proof that it was not to the fyftem, but the man that Cobbett aimed at, for although Dr. Dewees was employed by him in other cafes, he might not have done it, had the yelloAV fever came into his family, if he had, it would have changed the queftion, and proved the fcandal. The evidence of Dr. Ccx goes only to prove the opinion of Cobbett that all he could fay Ayould do no harm, fince the attack upon the bleedins IMPORTANT TRIAL. bleeding was well knoAvn not to have flowed from profefKonal know* ledge. This Avas paying homage to the charaaer of Dr. Rufh.—»If a man of no note had introduced the fyftem, he would not have faid a Avord about it, but fince a man of Dr* Rufh's talents, had advocated it> it Avas an objea worth attacking with all his might. But wherein is the coincidence between this teftimony, and that related by Dr. Dewees? The circumftance of the eulogium occurred in December, '96, or in January following, but the evidence of Dr. Coxe relates what did not occur until the September following, that if Dr. Rufh had not been the promoter of this purging and bleeding fyftem, he fhould not have thought it worth while to fay much about it. There can be no relation or conneaion between the two, becaufe one refers to expreffions Avhich he denominated " too republican" for which he meant to attack him ; but the other is wholly bent towards his fyf- tem of phytic. It Avas the weight of authority, fo great a man as Or* Rulh being at the head of that disapproved fyftem, which called forth, not his malice, but his animadverfions. It does appear to me that there was no appearance of the ingredient which the law calls milice, and which is neceffary to vitiate his condua, through the whole pro* grefs of the difcuffion, and that this man was not injured in his name, fame or reputation: in his name as a man in fociety, or in his domef* tic connections; in his fame as a man of fkill and profeffijn; or in his reputation as a Phyfician, and confequently there is no flander to his charaaer. We have heard much of the family of the plaintiff, and of the keen feelings of his refpeaable wife, of which not a doubt can be enter- tained. I fhould never have thought it my duty to have hazarded my refpeaability by (landing here to advocate a man who fhould flauder fo eminently ufeful a charaaer as Dr. Rulh, or his very refpectabla wife or family: far be it from me, I fhould rather have conli j.ied him and his caufe to the fate it would deferve. My profeffional name fhould never have borne the blot fuch condua would juftly attach to it. But this I conceive not to be the cafe. That my client has ove flepped the bounds of good manners and decorum, I have ainitted, bat that he had a right to run down what he believed to be a mif- chie/ous fyftem, I h-ivs contended for, and flill with to inn-els upon your minds. His condua mad meet with Iroiv* Luporobuion, but agreeable to the rules of law and juflice he merits your verdi.t, becaufe neither a breach of good mi mars, nor hirih opprobrious epichsts z\H be coiiftrued to mean slande: Hjw reprehemible foe/er his ci id ul, if he has not llandered the go id nams, fame or parfuits in life of Dr. Rjih, I repeat that William Cobbett nas a demand of jaitice at your hands, and clut is to ac^i; him >f the declaration. F Mft* 1 IMPORTANT TRIAL, Mr. MOSES LEVY. BY YOUR HONORS' LEAVE. Gentlemen of the Jury, A. HE enquiry before us is of a nature to demand our mofl ferious conlideration. From the attention which has been given to it through- out the difcuffion, by you and the Court, the utmoft candor is evident, and a juft onclufion certain. The fuit you are noAv to confider fhould be perfectly open to your underftanding ; its nature (hould be explain- ed, and fome of the errors corrected which have too generally efcaped from the counfel for the defendant, though, I prefome without inteiv tion. This is not legally a fpecial aaion for flander; it is true the aaion is to recover damages for grievous and unprovoked flander, but in its nature, this is an action for a libel. An action for slander and an ac- tion for a libel is differently underftoodin courts of juflice. Words may irritate and rankle ; they may even blad the charaaer of a man upon whom they are fpoken, but they perittt the moment they pafs out of the mouth of the fpeaker, and the fhortnefs of their dura- tion leffens their importance. But what is committed to paper,—Avhat is printed, has a lading impreffion, and is capable of much, and univer- fal mifchief. It exifts through ages, and is not confined to the feat of its birth, but may extend even to the iemoted parts of the earth. There can be no bounds of its effects. If flander, then, is punifhable by the law, with how much more nicety fhould reputation and private honor, be guarded from attacks by writing. For words, hoAvever public, the law has therefore provided no punilhment : the law does not confider the pubnc peace fo far injured thereby, as to command the public offi- cer to iffue profecution. But Avords committed to paper demands more attention, becaufe more extenfive are its effects. Taking notice, there- fore, as the law does by this pointed diftinction betAveen words fpokea and flander committed to the prefs, the offence is defined. In relation to words fpoken, fee 3 Blackftone 123, u Words which may impair, or hurt a man's trade or livelihoud, as to call a tradefman a bankrupt, a physician a quack, or a lawyer a knave." Thefe are an exception to the general propofition Avhich I have laid down, thatAvords are harmlei's. Thefe Avords are conlidered as a good ground for action, becaufe they attack in a vulnerable point, and it remains with the defendant to fhoAV that there was no malice intended in the ufe of them. Thus Ave find that the burden is put on the defendant. Another Avay of attacking a man's reputation, and a more ferious one is by printing, writing, exhibiting pictures or figns, Sec. fo astofet anyone in an odious and diminutive light, fee 3 Black. 125. Every libel has a tendency to breaking the peace, by provoking the perfon li- belled to break it. It is unneceffary to multiply authorities to prove the law is pointedly againfl the defendant, he having written what A a would IMPORTANT 1RIAL. would have been a libel even if fpoken. I fhall take it for granted then, that this newfpaper attacking of Dr. Uufh,as "quack," "potent quack," «gta':d empvric," £cc. " who had llain his tens of thoufands," is a t.rofsand i.famous libel, except it fhould be made to appear other- wile by extenuating, a..d giving it a mild afpect. _ Gentlemen, the principles -f la.v laid down by my colleague, in his opening addrefs were juft, and confident with the Enghlh books of law. If, for a moment, his zeal carried him into a ftate of effervef- cence, for which he is blamed by our opponents, it is what the mofl moderate man, .fn is warmly attached to reputation and charac- ter, who has read what was inferted againfl the plaintiff, can fcarcely refrain from fhowing. Who could reftrain a warmth of expreffion at feeing a worthy, valuable citizen fo lavidily abufed without provoca- tion ; with sut'ever appearing to have fpoken with the defendant, or even glanced at his principles or conduct. Farther, we find this ma- levolent intention repeatedly purfoed in, even after a profecution was commenced___It certainly will not be, nor has it been contended, that charaaer is not a facred thing; no one fhall touch it with impunity. Character is the road to private happinefs and publx confidence and honor. Deftroy the charaaers of men, and it diffolyes the union which blends together fociety, nor Avealth, nor real merit can Conceal contempt. So careful is tbe law to preferve character inviolable, that even the memory of the deceafed is facred, and the offence of traducing that memory is punifhed by law. It is not enough, then, to prove that the flander cannot operate to injury; no, the imputation caft upon the memory of the dead, might lead to aas of violence between the living, and thus the peace be broken. Such a libel as this upon the charaaer of a man, even after he had been dead fifteen years, would be fufficiently atrocious to juttify an indictment and pMiifhment. If the importance of reputation is fo exprefsly acknowledged by the laws of this country, and if thefe laws are deemed fo effential to the public peace, how are they to be carried into effea, but in one of two ways, legally.—Firft by public profecution, in which the defendant is not at liberty to give the truth of the libel, in evidence, or fecondly by an aaion for flander, in which he is at liberty to prove the truth, Avhich if he can do, exculpates him from legal blame. Of thefe two, Dr. Rufh was not at a lots to know which was mofl proper for him to adopt: it was reafon enough for him to commence a civil action, becaufe it gave the defendant an opportunity to bring fonvard the truth in jufti- fication, if he could do it. This civil aaion being commenced, yoiJ are the organs through whom alone we claim juftice. A jury taken from the mafs of the people, is a permanent and invaluable inftitution: they can befl eftimate the value of private or public charaaer, and difpenie judice in proportion to the quality of the offence. 1 he of- fice of a jury is permanent; however the perfons compofing it, may vary or die, yet the inftitution ever remains, and they are the judges on whom the law has relied property, perfonal liberty, and perfonal character. . In cafes where a jury eftimate damages too high, Avherein damages can be eafily eftimated, the court have a controlling jurifdiaion fyer their verdia; by ordering a, new trial, and referring it to ano- ther IMPORTANT TRIAL. ther jury. But in an aaion which refers to charaaer, to chadity, of to the honor of an i.idividual, you are the uncontrolled judges. Mat- ters of property the court is fippofed to be able to edm.a.e, but of the value of charaaer, 8cc. the jury are fuppofed to be able to give the bed judgment. If therefore the character of a vaL.foL- and refpec- table man is wantonly and Avickedly attacked, it lies with you, as the guardians of your fellow citizens, t« edimate the damages, luu have charaaers of your own, and you know the importance of preierv.nf.; them inviolate ; all of you follow fome bufinefs, aud you cannot be ignorant of the violence and effeas of an attack on the means you ufe to execute that bufinefs. You, Avho are merchants, mud conceive the danger a newfpaper publication, declaring you a ba .kmpt would be to you: it would wound your reputation fo as l> Ciieauate your ruin, by dopping your credit and your trade. It would be no excufe to your opponent to fay it Avas but a jed, becaufe the defamation v^ould be effected, and you mud differ. Picture to yourfelves, if you can, how you would feel, if precifely fituated as is the defend ant! of Avhat avail would it be to you ti be t-ld that it was only ridicule? Suppofe an infamous piaure was put before your door—fup- pofe a pair of horns, defcribing the conduct of your wife, aud that repeatedly, would you be fatisfied at being told it was u a testof t'utb" and ihat " ridicule ctuld d> you w •injury'/"—ouppofe it .vas h label put, that you were guilty of this or that fpecies of lwindhng, or Wo.;., fuppofe this to be inferted in the uewfpipers,—nippoic that indead of Ioav, indecent, arid rufliiu-like vulgarity, you were attached Avith a keen fatire,—would it be to your benefit that you Avere cut with a sharp knife ? No, it mud have a direct tendency to ruin, or material injury, and notwithftanding the utmoft ufe of poilofophy in calming the mind, to fay it is oiily ridicule will not avail to compenfate the injury. Let us enquire Avhat Avas the fituation of Dr. ItuPn at the time this flander Avas circulated. He refided in Philadelphia, and it Avas at a period Avhen mod had deferted it who poffeffed property fufficient to make their efcape, from a fenfe of the danger to which they fhould otherwife expole themfelves. He had property to fly, but he chofe to remain. Can you fuppofe, Gentlemen, that he remained here unruf- fled? His object in Haying could not be to enhance his private pro- perty, for it could not be profitable for him to day when mod or all of liis profitable patients had gone. No, his object in daying Avas the ge- neral good—to mark the deps of the diforder, and the fcnfible effects of the remedies which he applied, and to 1-iy before the public a feries of facts and obfervations Avhich might in future, either keep the pef- tilence out of our land, or if invaded again, reftrain its progrefs.—Yes,, at this important moment, in the execution of a great fervice; when every citizen of Philadelphia ought to have acknowledged their obli- gations to the man Avbo would braA'e Death fur the genera! good—- inftead of public thanks, the great points for which he Avas contending, and the great labors he was executing, Avere attacked in a public news- paper with the mod degrading ridicule, fcurrility and vulgar jeft. Yes, the defendant then infam >ufly attacked his profeffional fkill, in order t$ IMPORTANT TRIAL. to bring the man into derifion, and deprefs his name as one of the moft dangerous of the human race.—Gentlemen, what does fuch a man de- ferve ; a man who does not claim the honor of a finale stick among us ; a man who has taken the prefumption of degrading the moft re- fpectable characters of our country, from the Prelident of the United States to the loAveft citizen, whenever their fentiments have happened to come in contact with his. In the courfe of this caufe, he has (worn himfelf an Alien, and in another caufe he has declared his intention of returning to his own country. Yet this man who profeiTedly de- clares nimfelf of no country, pretended to Avifh Dr. Rulli had (tuck to his medical profeilion, and have let alone politics ! This man could not be fuppofed to be intereftedin the politics of our country ; he no doubt would have taken the part of hi3 own country, when in collulion Avith this, for he glories that he is not the citizen of a republic. And fhall he be permitted to revile a refpeaable citizen of th:s country tor do- ing that, which, if he had not done he Avould have merited cenfure, or at leaft not merited that good name now fo juftly given him. Dr. Rufh bad uttered fome fentiments which were " too republican" for Mr. Cobbett. This furnilhed a clue to the fublequent attack v.hich he made, not Avith a view tocorrea the medical praaice; not to pie- vent the introduaion, or flop the ravages of a dreadful difeafe—iv , ne flopped, as far as he was able, any examination into the truth; as much as he poffibly could, he Aveakened the force of the mind eu^ a;;ed in thofe ufeful refearches by clamor and abufe, and the ground was, becaufe he was a republican J What could he mean by this declarati- on, that he Avould attack him for it ? The refult will anfwer. While his republican opinions gave the offence, why did he not attempt to fhow that thofe opinions were founded upon wrong ideas of govern- ment? But not one word was ever feen upon that head. N>., h s at- tack was defigncd to be on a part more ufeful to his vicious defigns, and more injurious to the man—on his reputable name as a Pi.y„;cian. This will account clearly for the didance of time between the threat and its accomplifhment. In January 1797 he threatens, and keeping in his mind the offence, he began not to put it in execution until Sep- tember following. The arrow which was duck in ffs ti.L, he did not attempt to draw out at the moment of refentment, but there remaining it grew ftronger as it greAV older—it muft remain until a fit period for making it felt. None fo fit as Avhen his practice of Phytic was at its height, and the mind of his patients the mod weak and fufceptible.— Men differ much in opinions ; to attack him therefore upuii the repub- lican principles, he had laid down would not do; that was an injury not fufficiently exteutive, he would not attack him there ; he would wound him to effea. Accordingly at the moment of trepidation a, d confidence he cries out u Dr. Kulh has been the death of thotnands." Thus he produced by fkill, what argument would never have eft>a- ed. It is faid Cobbett has the fame right to offer his opinions, and to the liberty of the prefs Avhich others enjoy, and to examine public quefti- ons, 8tc. forAvhich the conflitution is appealed to; but permit me to ftate to you the principle that though a right to examine into the con- dua ' uifuixi/iiv i TRIAL. d ia of public officers and difcuffmg public queftions is there given, a right of refponfibility for that examination islikewile given, in cal'e of the abufe of that liberty. Admit that he has the right, (though in another cafe ic has been declared that aliens have not fimilar rights with citizens) there is flill much reafon for jealoufy, becaufe, as he has not the fame intereft at heart with citizens, not expecting to fpend his days here, his c^fcuflions of public queftions fhould be care- fully looked to. Indeed I think the " cloven foot" is plainly obferva- bL- in his Avritings. There is a fomething appears at the bottom, though it might not comport Avith his interefts to avoAv it. Suppofe this man Avas inveftigating a fyftem, or fearchmg after truth, which he had a right to do, are thefe refearches to be made with vulgarity, defamation, and fcurriliiy ? Is this the Avay to come at truth ? Are not juftifiable refearches made by utheis, and with fuccefs, without it? Surely you muft all think this the moft likely way to defeat his pre- tended object. The true mode, if I Avilh to convince of an opinion, is to reafon with the underHanding, and not traduce the character, and opinions of my pupil or opponent. What would the American people be thought of, if they could not be convinced without low abufe? Aud Avhat our Courts of Judice, if this (landerous ufage avus to be per- mitted with impunity ? The prefs is of incalculable benefit; it is the great road to informa- tion. The nature of man is formed to afpire after truth, but it can- not be expeaed by initiation, it mud come into the minds of men by a feries of deps, one leading to another : the prefs is a very important help to this progrefs, becaufe by it we difcover in one part of the world what has tranfpired at the mofl didant part from it. Thus improve- ments in arts and fcience are made. It is for its ineftimable general ufe Ave value it. Do Ave value it becaufe it furnifhes any man, avIio is able to purchafe a fet of types, and paper, with means to blacken ano- ther man's charaaer, fo that old age, virtue nor chafnty cannot throw a liiield round the victim of his envy I—It is neceffaiy to encourage the prefs, but (hall it be clone at the hazard of character—of all that is dear to man, his very means of fubfittence ? If fo, inftead of increaf- ing our know ledge and happinefs, it would operate as the greatell curfe upon fnv.l humanity : There is no principle in government, in Philof. i i'v, or in religion, that is fo facred but the fangs of envy might Ltavfsfully attack through the licentious ufe of the prefs. But if the aim of an individual is to improve the fciences, or the happinefs of man in any way, Avhatever be his mode, he ought to be protected and encouraged. Ii' his reafoning is fair and candid ; if his arguments are addrefled. to the underftanding ; if he fliews a defign of increafing the mats of knowledge among mankind,—to him the prefs ought to be free. It is by this means man is wrelted from ignorai.ee, and made as near to angelic as his nature will admit. If the defendant had taken thefr means to obtain his object—to destroy what be thought a ruinous system, as is pretended, far Avould it have been from the plaintiff even to have blamed him, much lefs commenced a fuit againd him. The opinions of Dr. Ruiii were circulated from an idea that they were juft; he iubuiittcu thoia to n.-blic fearch and enquiry. How were tl:ey to be *■ - S IMPORTANT TRIAL, be anfwered ? who were the people to be convinced of their propriety or impropriety ? Do the mafs of the people know how to form a juft judgment on it ? As for myfelf, my education, habit of life, nor lei- fnre has enabled me to form any judgment upon it; and I prefume feAV of you are able to fay whether the fyftem of Dr. Rufh is falfe or true. At the period alluded to, Philadelphia was in a diftreffed ftate, and owing to the prevalence of the fame difeafe in feveral parts of the union, commerce and wealth have been confiderably impaired. D,id this man endeavor to leffen that affliaion ? were his efforts direaed to promote public happinefs, or to fatisfy perfonal animofity ? Gentle- men, you muft determine thefe points. Did he accompany his argu- ments with a tingle fcientific remark, or give a fingle argument as to the origin or neceffary treatment of the difeafe, as though he wifhed to alleviate the prevailing diftrefs ? Every thing proves that he wifhed not to improve tbe fyftem, and why fhould he ? he had no incitements; he declared his defign not to fpend his life amongft us, and of courfe had no common filtered with us. To him it was not an objea whe- ther Philadelphia was defolated or not. Perhaps, indeed, the reduc- tion of trade here would give him pleafure: the diminution of the growing wealth of the principal cities of the United States, might af- ford hiin gratification, fince his own country muft otherwife receive impreffions from our profperity. No, it is evident he did not with to develope error, to convince men, or increafe public happinefs, or he would have ufed arguments to fhow the fallacy of the praaice efta- blifhed. But he knew not, nor cared any thing about it. I fhall now proceed to prove, by the molt irrefragible evidence, the previous, concomitant, and subsequent malice of William Cobbett, from the teftimony you have heard. There was a previous intention of attack. Before the writings iffued, the defign Avas formed. Whenever an aa fhall appear, that correfponds with a previous declaration, Ave may juftly conclude a co- incidence therefrom. Thus, fhould a man fay, " 1 will raife fuch an army, and oppofe fuch a laAV :" if in nine months after, fuch things are done, the circumttances are blended together, and it is fuppofed to be treafon. As we obferved before, the circumttances of January and September, '97 are coupled fo as to be impoffible to part them. He then really fulfilled his promife, endeavoring to make Dr. Rulh appear as odious as poffible. I can fee no excufe for fuch epithets under the name of ridicule, but I will fay, any Avriting that tends to fet a man in a ridiculous light is a libel. The words ufed to ridicule tbe plain- tiff, might excite a laugh, but that is not all it eught to excite, as, the honorable Gentleman fuppofes, who fpoke jud noAv. Shall the attick fait, the elegance of language, or the keennefs of a fatire, ex- cufe a man's abufe ? Of what comfort Avould you think it to be cut with a sharp knife, and fhould the offender be excufed, becaufe the weapon was keen ? Shall a man dare to bting the Prefident of the United States, or the Congrefs into contempt, and he be excufed un- der the name of ridicule and ribaldry? No, the laAVs of the United States, and of the States, provide that notwithftanding the keennefs of the expreffions, a libel fhall be punittied. It is not juttifiable merely becaufe important Trial. becaufe it is calculated to excite a laugh. Does not the defendant reprefent the plaintiff in an odious point of view, and afcribe to him the murder of his fellow creatures, by the ufe of bleeding and mercu- ry? Can there be a more fevere attack upon a medical man, or upon his art than this ? What kind of man mutt he be, who follows a parti- cular fyftem with callous heart and murderous hands, when lie fees direful effeas attending that fyftem ? Who would follow fuch a fyf- tem of flaughter as this is reprefented, but the moft abandoned and unfeeling wretch ; and who Avould employ the man that fhould fo em- brue his hands in blood ?—This " potent quack ;" this " murderer ;" this unfeeling empyric, rejoices at the murder of his fellow-citizens, and has no other way of getting over his mifanthrophy, than by eu- logizing himfelf, or getting fome weak men of his oavii profeffion to eulogize him !—Gentlemen, I afk if this does not let the plaintiff in a ridiculous point of view,—a fit objea for the deteflation of the world ? With refpea to Spilfbury's antilcorbutic bill, it is an exemplary fpe- cimen of quackifm—an univerfal noflrum worthy univerfal contempt. K There matter Sangrado, beat that if you can." Meaning, by writing letters, and getting eulogiflic anfwers purpofely to puff yourfelf. In my opinion thefe words, and the words u a puff equal to Dr. Rufh's" means no more nor lefs than that Dr. Rufli has equalled it, and there- fore is an empyric. On the fecond of Oaober Dr. Cox called on Cob- bett, when he advifed him to withold his publications, as he could uot calculate on the injury they did. Notwithftanding this evkience of their ill effeas he Aveut on publittiing on the 5th, 6th and 20th of Oc- tober, increafingthe aggravation of his crime. He faid if any other man than Dr. Rufh had done it, he fhould not have fo gone on. Was it that he thought Dr. Rufli high in his profeffion, and therefore the moft proper objea Avhereby to attack the fyftem? No, I think it quite otherwilc. Could any man hear the gentleman who fpoke laft, com- plimenting Dr. Rulh on this pre-eminent llation to Avh ch Mr. Cob- bett had exalted him, Avithout laughing ? Can any man think him iincere? I agree it Avas all the honorable gentleman could fay, becaufe a cafe like this muft neceffarily put ingenuity to its laft fhift, and leave genius without even a plaufible refource. No, we know better. He had called the Doaor " Sangrado" " potent quack, &c :" he has afperfed him with " killing his tens of thoufands by his prepofter- ous praaice" aud can it be fuppofed, after all this, that his wri- tings were direaed againfl the Doctor for his eminent fkill, and that it was honorable to him? No, we can trace it but to one caufe—private, personal malice, Avithout the leaft regard to public duty, or public good. He declared he would attack, but little did be expea that this avoAval would ever come againfl him. " Let him Avithdraw his aaion, or I will perfecute him while living, and his memory after he is dead." What an heart has this man ? My colleague has been blamed for keen expreflions, and violence of attack. But av hat is violence? Gen- tlemen of the Jury, I Avifh you to remember that Athat is Aiolence without evidence, is truth with evidence. To call murder only affault 3jid battery would be a pervcrlioa of terms. To call malice, "fun" H IMPORTANT TRIAL. is as much fo. To fay that the defendant had malice at heart when he ufed thefe words, I therefore contend is evident without a doubt. Perhaps he ufed this violence for another purpofe. I could name a perfon who fell a victim to the malice indefatigably thrown at him through this veiy ne.vs paper. A man that fhould ufe fuch threats, could not be fuppofed to ufe his weapons but to the mod bafe intenti- ons. And fhall a man cf this bale difpofition teach Americans poli- tics ? Shall this man deal about the '1 heorems and Aphorifms of the medical art, and examine fyftems of praaice which he does not even pretend to underdand ? Can there be any cafe of malice more exprefs than thefe words convey, or a better key found Avhereby to explain his writings? If exprefs der. Rufh and fay, " I (hould have employed you, had not I read fuch a charaaer of you; you have murdered thoufinds, and therefore I could not trud my life with you." To ef- timate damages mud be your province agreeable to circumttances. Gentlemen, the queftion of damages often came before the courts in England, of which Ave have fome fome accounts in the books, and they ai=e not always guided by pecuniary circumttances, but more to enforce the laAV, and Hioav example. The IaAv has there eftimated the fine for feducing a man's wife at ten thoufand pounds flerling. Here is no pe- cuniary injury fudained, but a very heavy fine laid ; for often it may happen that a man has a bad wife, and her lots is a r«al profit to him, but this is not the meafure of the fine. Though lefs than that fum is ufually laid, yet it is always exemplary. We find other cafes menti- oned in the books. 2 Wilfon, 206. A journeyman printer, in the office of the North Briton, wasfeized for publifhing No. 45 of that paper. He was feized by an order of the feeretary of ftate, and de- tained but fix hours in cutody, and during that time treated with beef flakes and beer. On examining this in a court, to which it was re- ferred, the jury gave 300I. flerling damages. The faa was, not the pecuniary injury fuftained by the man was confidered, but the political confequences—the liberty of the fubjea, and therefore the award re- ceived the approbation of the court. In 244 fame book, ioool. was awarded for a falfe iraprifonment of fix days ; alfo p 252 there is a cafe of affault and battery. In all thefe, the confequences were confidered. 3 Blackdone 126, notes there was 4000I. damages laid for a reflection on the chadity of a lady. Thefe, gentlemen, are indances of exem- plary damages, and that is what Ave afk for in the prefent cafe, by your verdia. Doaor Rufh has a wife and children arrived to ages capable of reading newfpapers. Can any man fet by with patience, Avhen he fees his children ciying, or his wile in tears in confequence of the perpetual newfoaper abnfe lavifhed upon a tender hufband and a loving father ? —abufe and reproach the mod heart-rending—no lefs than a murderer and ■• quack. Suppofe yourfelves for a moment in his fituation, and fay whether the meafure of this newfpaper libelling ought to be confi- ned merely to the damages any individual could fudain from it, or whether it ought not to be made a public example of, on account of tV irinciple. It is high time to refcue the American character from the indifference Avhich has too long prevailed amongft us, while Ave fee the charaaers of our unamending fellow-citizens configned to infamy. If it has hitherto been too much diiregaided, let not this be fo, for furely it is time to punilh crimes fo daring. This man has declared, that he would " perfecute the defendant while living, and his memory IMPORTANT TRIAL. after his death." Hoav can you check this vindiaive fpirit, but by timely and exemplary punilhment ? Let him be taught that he has wantonly attacked, and that with cool deliberate malice, an unoffei.d- ing individual, and though he has removed himfelf out of the jurifdicti- on of this court, yet that he is a marked man , and that a refpeaable jury of Philadelphia have ftudied only principles of truth and jud.ce with impartiality. Let others be taught by his punilhment to avoid his offence. On the other hand, let not Dr. Rufh be a marked man for defama- tion, and his name be remembered with fcorn. Let it not be faid to him ♦' your charaaer is fo infamous that no flander can defame it." Nor let it be faid that the immaculacy of character, againfl which he dreAV his fliaft, Avas fuch as to excufe or protea the infolent offender from damages. If Cobbett has never injured the character of Dr. Rulh, it is evident he has attempted to do it, and Avith his utmoft efforts— but I think he has injured it. He certainly has v.ounded his feel- ings ; he has hurt his health, and he has wounded him in his family. There cannot be a d®ubt but he has wounded his fame and reputation, and of courfe his pecuniary intereft. As I think you muft be of the fame opinion Avith me in thefe particulars, I fliall content myfelf with confiding this cafe to you, and as I am lure nothing in the condua of Dr. Rufh has merited fuch infamous treatment, fo lure am I you will do him fatisfaaory judice. Mr. TILGHMAN READ a letter written by Dr. Rufh to Dr. John Rogers, from the Philadelphia Gazette of October 3, 1793, in Avhich he defcribts the fymptoms of the yellow fever then prevalent, and alfo the method he conceived the moft proper to cure it. He alfo read extraas from tAvo pamphlets lately publifhed, contain- ing obfervations on the origin, ficc. of the malignant billious or yellow fever. Mr. LEWIS read extraas from Porcupine's paper of Oaober 19, and 21, 1797, wherein are extraas from Gill Bias, where a conver- fation occurs between Gil Bias and Sangrado. The latter extraa is headed thus: " To Doaors Rulh and Caldwell." Mr. Tilghmax then addreffed the jury as follows: Gentlemen of tbe Jury, JL AGREE moft heartily with the council for the plaintiff that if you came into the bar, previous to being fworn with any prejudice what- ever, you ought to lay it perfectly alide, and confider the caufe, which you are called to try, fairly between man and man : you fliould come with minds, in the language of the law " like blank paper," and re- ceive fuch impreflions only as. law and cwideiice muft make. William, IMPORTANT TRIAL. William Cobbett, my client, though an alien, is entitled all the ad-, vantages Avhich laAv and judice can bedo%v ; and if he can fatisfy you that damages ought not to be recovered from an American Handing in his place, no damages are to be given againd him___The plaintiff de, mandsdamages of myxlient for certain publications written by him, faid to be libellous, on his profeffional reputation and character, to fupport which much has been faid, but what deferves particular notice is, that the plaintiff's council are tremblingly alive as to the character of Dr. Rufh, while Mr. Cobbett is treated in terms utterly deftructive of all charaaer and reputation. This was not what I expeaed in any cafe whatever, and efpecially from the gentlemen whence it came, whom, I much refpea. G ntle- men, you are not to pay regard to the contemptuous light in which the defendant is held by the plaintiff's council: you are not to meafure your verdia by their refentment. One gentleman in order to fhow the contemptuous light in which he holds Cobbett's opinion, has faid he muft extend his duty beyond the ordinary limits. There can be no doubt but his zeal for his client induced him to go an extravagant length, or he would not have fitted the defendant an affaffin (Avhich he has twice done) and a noxious animal thrown up from the very dregs and flime of obfcurity, a being which has no equal in fociety, taking his tigers ftrides to do mifchief, and guilty of every fpecies of editorial pol- lution. Farther he condemns him for his litigious difpofition. Where, I afkis the evidence of this difpofition ? It is not before the court, nor has it appeared in his condua, for he has not appealed to the laAv to redrefs his wrongs, but has ufed another weapon, his pen. So far has my friend's zeal carried him, that he declared he could name an individu- al who was brought to the grave by this man's publications, thefe are vague and unproved affertions: words which have no tendency but to inflame your minds, but I can only impute it to a zeal, the impropri- eties of which they know as well as I am able to inform them. May we not fuppofe, after all this that Mr. Cobbett is a man more finned againfl, than finning ? For while abufe and deteftation is his lot, Dr. Rufh is daubed with praifes fo lavilhly that he muft almofl have bluflied to hear them. He was compared to Hypocrates, at Athens, having done fo much as to be entitled to public thanks, and yet the public are much divided as to t!«e efficacy of his means of treatment, but more particularly fo as to his opinion of the origin of that fatal difeafei Fuither. The defendant is faid to be an alien, and to owe no ah legiance to our government, and that his difcuflions of public ques- tions fhoAV the cloven-foot.—With relpect to country, it is a principle that every alien who comes here, does oAve allegiance—a temporary allegiance. So long as he flays to receive the benefit of our laws, fo long he is anfwerable to them, and is bound to refpea them. 1 am far from contending that the defendant is immaculate or infallible, yet I muft fay that he is not Avithout fome merit. He certainly did, (whatever his motive, whatever cloven-foot he might have had con- cealed) at a critical period, give a very feafonable and proper alarm .to this country; an alarm which did much towards uniting our citi- zens in an attachment to preferve the honor of our country, and which tended IMPORTANT TRIAL. tended much to refcue us from European influences and attachment. As he b.-gan, fo he perfevered, and Ave are not Avithout experiencing its good effea. Twice were bills of indiameuts lent to grand juries, who proved bis innocence of the charge; exhibited aga'nll him by his opponents, by returning both of them ignorarnvs. HoAvever, all tins is foreign t > the queftion at prefent, but the plaintiff 's council having departed to derogate, we may be allowed to exta:ua:c I agree Avith Mr. Levy in his ftatement of the law ; he certainly has dated it with precilion and accuracy, and I muft do honor to his trJents and candm. It formerly became my duty to ftate to this court, th it every .vriting is on the fee of it independant of collateral matter (Avhich does not appear upon the face) either criminal or in- nocent. Firlt, If it appears on the face of it to be innocent, or not libellous, Mill it becomes criminal and libellous, if written with a particular in- tent of a criminal nair.rc—then fuch intent muft be proved. Secondly. If it appears, from the face of it to be criminal or libel- lous, there may, from the occafion, be judification or excufe. In each cafe, the criminality or innocence depends on collateral matter, not appearing on the face of the paper. LaAvful excufe is judifiable either in legal proceedings ;—Reprefen- tations of an injury, ice. even when the publication is in a neAvfpaper: From a fenfe of" duty, and not with a malicious intent:—Or in confi- dence, or with a view to reform and amend. Generally. Publications must include malice or a criminal in- tent either express or implied. I agree that if the jury fhould find the words themfelves to be li- bellous, then the plaintiff can recover damages, to prevent which, it would be his duty to (how that the intention Avas innocent. A cafe to exemplify thefe doCtrines, is found in 2 Burrows, 807. tl This was an action upon the cafe for fpeaking and publilhing defa- matory, fade,malicious and libellous words, of and concerning the plain- tiff, Sir J i hn Adley." 1 he defendant applied to the plaintiff (a judice of the peace) for a tavern licence, and was refuted: on which account, words were ufed by the defendant, which were fuppofed libellous. Lord Mansfield in the cafe fpoke thus, page 810: " I he charge againd the defendant is made upon oath, and fup- ported by the affidavit of Sir John Adley, and of the defendant in a;:- nver to his complaint: he mentioned the charge, and denies it with this conclufion, calling it l> what Sir J. A. has fo falsely lwcra ag.u id him." " Now in every difpute in a court of judice upon oath, where one by affidavit charges a thing, and the other by affidavit denies it, the c;ue i , ordinarily, much tbe same (in effect) with the prefent, andeaeh party might bring a civil action againd the other; for it too often happens that the affidavit and evidence arc in terms directly oppo- site each oilier. " As to the reafon of the thing, there can be no scandal if the allegation is materia!) and if it is not, the court before whom the in- IMPORTANT TRIAL. dignity is immaterial fcandal, may order satisfaction, and expunge it cut of the record) if it be upon the record." Thus Ave fee that though the defendant was charged Avith fwearing that Sir John Aftley had " forfworn hirtiftrlf, and he (the defendant) would not do it for bis Avhole ettate," yet, although the expreflioa ** falfely" Avas rather too rough, it was not taken notice of. I muft agree with the gentlemen, that had I.been engaged in oppo- fing Dr. Rulh's opinions, I fhould have deemed it very improper to have ufed fuch coarse expreffions. this brings me to a more clofeaud immediate vieAV of the fubjea. The fever of 1793 you Avell remember. Dr. Rufiiftaid in the city, no doubt, from a fenfe of duty : no doubt this operated flrongly with him, but it cannot be fuppofed that he had no fenfe of the profit : he expeaed to be paid for his labor, but notAvithftanding thac, his exer- tions did him very great honor. I do not pretend to juttify fuch an attack on the fyftem he praaifed, but I do not think that condemning the system was libellous. I am fure that when he came to take even 70 or 80 ounces of blood he was under the moft perfect convidtion that it was neceffary to fave the life of his patient, and that in all his praaice he was actuated by the moft honeft motives. But the mod fenfible, ingenuous and ardent man ; the moft indefatigable in his exertions, is moit flrong- ly irapreffed with new fyftems and ideas, Avhen they come plaufibly fop- * ported. Inquifitive minds, like that of Dr. Ruth, are not of a caft to boggle at adopting ftrong meafures, efpecially \\ hen convinced of their * utility. To us it was new ; the ufe of mercurial purges and bleeding, to fo vaft an amount, was entirely unheard of by us, and therefore it was no wonder that the praaice fhould ipread an alarm of nearly as fe- lious a nature as the fever itfelf. Doctor Rufh was fo confident of the fuccefs of his fyftem, that in a let- ter addreffedto his fellow-citizens on the 12th of September, 1793, he affures them " there is no more danger from it, when thefe remedies lt have been ufed in the early ftage, than there is from the meafles or in- "• fluenza." But with all his fuccefs, and though he flood foremost, end nearly alone, as his counfel fay, there was a deftruaion in that year of nearly 5000 perfons- Notwithftanding fo many perifhed, though he flood almoft alone, and notwithftanding the novelty of the remedies, and the great applications of bleeding and mercury, the pub- lic mind was extremely agitated and divided as to the efficacy of them. What was ftill more extraordinary, there is no man whofe perfuafivc foftnefs and tendernefs of manners is more likely to attract the confi- dence and acquiefcence of either pupils or patients than thofe of Doc- tor Rufh. But ftories of bleeding and purging were much exaggera- ted in the relation, fo as toharrafs the public mind extremely. Indeed the phyficians themfelves Avere much divided, and even parties were formed to fupport the different fyftems. The event of this was a creation of animofity and neAvfpaper contention. Of courfe this increafed the public alarm, and dreadful Avas our fituation. One fet of Doaors con- tended this was the true mode, and the other another. In this ftate of uncertainty and indecifion things remained until the fever again unhap- pily broke out in j 797, and with it the Doctors' quarrels, on account of which . IMPORTANT TRIAL. which numerous publications iffue forth. Nor even AA-rre the relpecH* ble learned inftitutions exempt : the College of Fhyficians and the Medical Academy. I believe the difference betAveen thofe bodies ftifl exill.* Doctor Rufh ftaid again, and much to his honor. It is faid that the great point for which he daid was fruftrated. Gentlemen I afk by whom it was frudrated? Can it be believed that it was fruftrated by Cobbett ? Whofe oppofition to Dr. Rufli Avas moft ferious, that of Cobbett, or that of the Doaors ? As you are not fiire it was by Cobbett, but muft have good ground for believing the other more potent, there can be no doubt^where his disappointment ori- ginated. Or, I would afk> was it fruftrated at all? No doubt tbe Doaor did much good by flaying, and as the difpute was fo undecid- ed, I do not believe that any perfon would be prevented frcm apply- ing to Doaor Rufh for afliftance on account of Cobbett's publicati- ons. In September 1797, out comes Cobbett's firft publication. I do not mean to vindicate the manner of the attack, but my client has been charged with calling the defendant a murderer. Now, Gentlemen, I appeal to your confciences, can any man Avho reads the publ'cation look upon it as any thing like a serious charge againfl Dr. Rufh as a murderer ? I am very fure that you w ill all allow with me that he meant no more than a ludicrous attack upon the fyftem of which he certain- ly Avas the head. What is murder ? It is to kill a man by malice prepense. It can- not be fuppofed that the defendant had an idea of fo ferious a charge. There were numerous fkirmifhes among the Doaors, and he fkirmifh- ed among the reft with the only weapon he poflefi'ed: Ridicule. In this fenfe " ridicule is furely the teft of truth," however the ingenuou* gentleman may have ufed it. I afk, then, did this proceed from tool de- liberate ma ice, or was it ridiculing a fyftem Avhich he fuppofed to be ill founded ? If he had meant that Doaor Rutti went on murderoully rejoicing at the direful effeas of his fyftem, it furely Avould have been a libel of the moft egregrious nature, but the idea cannot be proved, even by the greateftingenuity. That William Cobbet had a right to attack that fyftem or any other Ave contend is indubitable, however fmall the flake he had among us, or hoAvever fliort his intended flay, if he ufed no improper Avoids in making that attack. I allow, Avith Mr. Levy, that it is incumbent on the Defendant, when brought into the court, to prove that he did not ufe the Avoids with an evil intention ; with refpea to this, we contend that if he excrcifed his abilities Avith a view to the public fafety, he exercifed them not only innocently but laudably. I fubmit to you that the publications include no defign to render Dr. Ru,'!«, in his perfon odious, or to injure bim in his bul: net's. HoAvever free he has been in his attack upon Dr. Tilton, or any other perfon, he has here only attacked mercury and blood lettin:;. If he ever difapproved of the private character of the defendant, he has not exemplified * Tbe difference was explained to exist at present only as to tbe ori- gin, whether by import at Ln or of domestic source. U itb> respect f> treatment they'now both a^re.- with ihe system of Dr. R...h. IMPORTANT TRIAL. r:c=mpiified it: the phyficians Avere the main battle, and great was the* fhock, but Cobbett Avas a mere fkirmilher, on the praaice and not on the man. I foeak in reference to the publications mentioned in the declaration, for :ri >ugh the plaintiff's cou.cil have a right to read any other pub- lications, it is only to fhew the quo animo, or defign with which the others were written. But the malice cf this man is faid to be deep, antecedent, concomit- ant and subse ucnt.—All this I deny. The telHmony of Dr. Dcv.rs is called to prove that it Avas antecedent.—Sometime in 1796, D vtor Ruin delivered, on occafion of the departure of Dr. Rittenhoufe from this life, an elegant eulogium—too elegant to be forgotten. However, there was fome little of that fort of spice in it which was not pleafing to Mr. Peter Porcupine. It was too republican for his taite. I do not know what Dr. Rufh's political fentiments ?re, but if they are of one fort, I fhould diflike them as much as Cobbett. If of another fort, 1 fhould approve of it, and perhaps not think it too republican. But that is to be no meafure for him ; h? had a right to attack them. In a converfation about the merits of th-.it eulo rem, he fays " Darin him, I will attack him for it." This, to be lure 13 very illiberal, but he did not fay in Avhat way he would attack him, or that, he meant more than to attack him as a political man. Tnere is no evidence of any private malice that Peter had in his heart, nor can it be contended that this eulogium was the ground of his attacks, mentioned in the declaration, for h id it been fo it would not have retted fo long in filence as frorii January 'till September. No, from the reprefentation of gentlemen themfelves, he was of too combudibie a matter to keep it fo long. If it made any impreffion at all, it was not folid, for if it had, I think it Avould have been out of the poAver of bleeding and drastic purges to do it away. He Avas angry, and expreffed his anger in a very coarfe way. Well—In September came the attack. Is into the man or the system ? It has appeared that Dr. Dewees praaifed upon the fydem of Dr. Rufh, and yet he attended Cobbett's family. This is brought to prove the man, and not the fyftem Avas the object of attack ! I afk whether, if there had come an alarmof the fever du- ring Dr. Dewees's attendance upon Mr. Cobbett's family, he would have been fuffered to ufe Dr. Rufh's fyftem ? If that had been done, then indeed there would h;we been reafon to conclude tbe man was attacked. I cannot bat confider this circumftance refpeaing the Eu- logium to be anattempt todraAvthe attention of the Jury from the real merits of the cafe, tending to eftablitti a belief that th< re was deep fettled malice, which he kept in his bread during that period, groAving deeper and dronger in proportion to the time it exifted in the mind, and therefore, gentlemen, you are earneftly inftruaed to give verdia for the plain iff. On the fame account alfo, the queftion is afked why Cobbett fliould Avilh a reform in medicine? and it has even been hinted that he might Avifti to leave the difeafe without a cure, and might not be difpleafed with the misfortunes of Philadelphia, becaufe it would dimir.ith the commerce, and probably ferve his own country. This fure.y is too much to fay of any man, but tho' ferious' IMPORTANT TRIAL. ferious, I have no doubt you will put the whole of thefe insinuations upon a candid footing, and decide only upon facts. As to his wilding to leave the difeafe without a cure, it is abfurd,for he flayed in Phila- delphia during the fever of '97, in which fituation, he fubjefted him- iclf to be the firft viairn of his own envy ! This is what 1 think you will fcarcely believe. In the evidence of Dr. Meafe it appears that Cobbett mad'; ufe of a very intemperate expreffion,but havingbeen fued, he might be idle enough, knowinghimfelftobe mafterof a very bitter weaponthe pen— he might think he could thereby induce Doaor Rufh to withdraw his aaion. If fo, he was guilty of a very great inifconclufion. He was very 'wrong, but I rather think it muft have been the effeft of hade, without any evil intention. Gentlemen, upon your oath, try if you can couple thefe Avords wich thofe fpoken to Doaor Dewees ! 1 think you cannot. As to the words to Mr. Cox, I am of the fame opinion with Mr. Harper : that he would " not have written againd the fydem, if Dr. Rufh had not been the author of it." It was paying a very great compliment to Doctor Rufli. This appears to have taken place about the time the fuit was commenced, and to have been preffed upon him by Doaor Cox. Doaor Cox himfelf feems to believe it to be an attack upon the fydem. His view Avas no doubt to preferve the life and health of his fellow creatures, many of Avhom, in his opinion, fuffered from this mode treatment, and therefore he did his utmod to point out the danger. Upon this part I fhall not remain longer, fince I think neither " keen, private, nor perfonal malice," as has been pretended, can be proved. Gentlemen view the whole together as Mr. Levy faid^ and if you fee all this " fixed, keen, private, peifonal malice" againd Doaor Rufh, then you mud give verdict for the plaintiff. But I confider that the great alarm which exifted in the public mind at that time, many deeming the praaice in queftion to be no lefs than poifon, and death—If fuch was the alarm, and fuch the apprehenfion, for Avhich I appeal to your recolleaions—then, I fay it Avas not improper to point the fliaft of ridicule againfl the fyftem fo replete with danger. But, Gentlemen, fuppofe you fhould be of opinion that the Plan- tiff has been injured by thofe publications, and damages ought to be awarded, the next queftion that occurs to you is what ought those damages to be ? It has been a queftion afked by the plantiff's coun- fel " Who knoAvs hoAV many have been prevented from applying to Dr. Rufli"? Hoav a negative can be proved I cannot conceive ', neither he nor I can tell who has been prevented ; that is entirely in tbe dark. Doaor Rufh's Couniel, Avhen they dreAV up the declaration drew it upon fpecial damages. Near the conclufion of the declaration are thefe words ! (The said Benjamin") is alfo thereby greatly pre- judiced in his bufinefs praaice and profeffion of Phyfician, and prac- titioner as aforefaid, many persons have been induced to withdraw their confidence from the said Benjamin, as Physician, aforesaid, and the following persons, who were previously accustomed to employ the said Banjamin a Physician as aforesaid to wit : ; ^ Cc «• .'he IMPORTANT TRIAL. " The mountains are in labour, and a rediculous mouse creeps fbrf.." ! ! Where, then, are the inftanc.es in Avhich Doaor Ruth has received damages ? W he- fin is he injured ?—all the induftry of thofe Gentle- men, could not find out foecial damages, or a culfomer withdrawn. It appears that fuch was Dr. Rufh's reputation, that he is not in- jured. You knew what this reputation and charaaer i< at prefent. I do not mean by this that, if you difcover the expreffions to have procetdedfrom malice you are to g;ive any damages ; but you mutt be guided by the injury fuftained in a greaf manner. Flas not Doctor Rufli from 1715 to 17 '7 and from 1797 to 1799 been in as great bufinefs as he could do ? Plaintiff's Counfel—We fay No.—We can prove from hisbooks that his bufinefs has materially leffened fince this newfpaper attack commenced on him. Mr. Tighi.man.—Tt is faid that Mr. Cobbett violated the law by fubfequent publications. I grant that, from the moment the fuit was commenced he has done Avrong in doing or faying any tt ing until the trial. So far he was liable to punifhment, but not in this Avay, nor at this time. He was liable for contempt of Court, and if Dr. Rufh had complained, he could have been committed for that contempt. The moment a fuit takes place the law fays the parties ought both to be filent, because every thing ought to come be- fore a Jury, Avho fhali not have their pnflions ntifed, or be prepof- feffed in favor of either party. Therefore, this does not prove tha^ he fhall recover aggravated damages. One of the Counfel has fuppofed libels to be the fources of nume- rous evils, and laid down the petition that to fecure good govern- ment you mud punifh libels feverely ; thus levere punifhment would be the belt criterion of a good government ! I trufl this will never be a law principle ; that no perfon will ever be punifhed, not even an alien, to prove how good the government is. How fatal avouI be the adminiftration of Juftice if this was law ! To what fevere ties would it not lead 1 It has been foid, that you are the uncontrolled Judges of dama- ges. In matters of debt or property, there can be no difficulty as to the eftimate of damages proper, and then the Court will not fuffer Avhat is eafily perceivable to be an extreme aAvard. But, in civil fuits, as in an aaion for Slander, when damages are uncertain, and difficult, the afcertainment of thofe damages are more necn- liarly the province of the Jury, though in that they arc not perfeaiy uncontrolled ; but the Court Avill not prant a neAv trial, unlefs the damages given are " outrageous;" unlefs, " at the firft blufli, all mankind would revolt againfl it." Farther, they are not uncon- trolled, becaufe they are to confider the Plaintiff's fuffering, and the Defendant's ability to pay. Would you give againd William Cobbett the fame damages as againfl a man with an hundred times the property ? Surely not. You muft confider the circumftances of the man. There has been no evidence adduced in refpea to the circumttances of the defendant, but it is a rule in Courts to fine the party not to bis ruin. The IMPORTANT TRIAL. The Counfel has told you, that if a Phyfician's character is fuf- pe ted, it is ruined. Then may I f.ty that Dr. Rufh's is not only noc ruined, but in as high credit and reputation as can at .end a ph;. fician, and therefore not even fo foe cted, and if not futpeaedj h' is not injured. It has been faid, that if damages avc re not given fufficiently high, Perfons would take the Ijav into their own hands, and the Jury muft take the confequences, therefore you muft give high damages to avoid being implicated yourfelves ! Gentlemen, pay regard only to juftice, and leave the conf-quences ; meafore the degree cf inju- ry received on the one h*nl, and the ability to pay on the other, and thus eftimate your damages. Remember, rhat although the doaor may have a right to damages, his reputa.ion v/ill not in the lead be affected bvyour not giving him largedamages. 1 pafs by the gentleman's appeal to the juil heaven:, and his pi- le >.is fcene of crying children and a weeping AVife. becaufe I know you can only eftimate this as an appeal to your pn'fi ns. 1 fhall, therefore, only proceed to examine the cafes referred to y~u. The cafe in 2 Wilfon 2X)6 was a flagrant violation of the liberty of the fubjea, by unjuft imprifonment, and 300_£ was no:: <-o high an award, though the imprifonment Avas ttiort, and the treatment good. The Secretary of State vras there exercifi.ig arbitrary power by taking the man up upon a general warrant. 1 has it ltruck the jury. " To enter a man's houfe by Airtue of a namelels narr.tiu is *■ worfe than the Sp.in.fh inquil'i i /f,'Piety superstition. Seduction and Debauchery gal'a.itry, violence spi-ii, and the whole ftore-houfe of defamation, here ranfacked for epithets of reproach, is denominated Acrimony I We may call any thing by a soft name, but that does not al.er the nature of the thing. The Counfel in admitting the eminence in point of fkill, and the purity of Heart of the Plaintiff, takes from the defendant all poffibility of defence in attempting to foy its founda- tion. If Doctor Rufli is thus defervedly eminent, and if there can be no fufpicion of his integrity, ar.d he has aaed fo uprightly in his at- tendance upm a difeafe, the mod fatal that ever Providence inflicted upon a guilty Avorld, with what temper ought a man to come forward and fpeak of him ? Certainly it ought to be with much deference and refpea to his charaaer and conduct. But even fuppofing he did fall int» an error, fliall he be held up to the Avorld as the moft remorfelefs of murderers ? We are told by the learned counfel on the other fide that "Ridicule is the teft of truth." I deny the polition. This Avas the favorite po- fition of that Arch Deift Sbaftefbury—driven from the field of Rea- son RIAL. son and Argument, this Avas his only fubterfuge in his attacks on Chriftianity. It is pciffible, to be fure, to render truth a ridic-.r'e; in the fame manner you may drefs a Avife man in a tool's cap. 'th's maxim, fo long ago exploded by the greater part cf mankind, mud now be revived—its revival is Averthy cf the caufe of the defendant!— The very gofpel of Heaven, by dillorting its fenfe, and by partial re- prefentations, may be made to appear ridiculous : But this is no teft of its intrinfic merits. The laAv, hoAvever, has refolvcdthis quedion : " You sb:dl not, by a libel, or by writing, s^t a man in a ridiculous ligbt"~-the icafon torn* a part of the rule—it goes on, "end thereby diminish bis reputation." 3 Blackdone 125. The fame d^arine is exemplified in the other books, and the lav- fays expref-ly, that "you shall not make a repre- sentation even to impute to a man boasting and vain glOrt."— This is a principle laid down in Hawkins Slander endeavors to creep behind every covert battery, and alfomes every form—fometimes it even pretends to praife and cemmend a man,for the very purpofe of in- troducing its venom. Gentlemen, the law fays this is a libd ; judges have faid fo throughout the annals of ewiy court, and fhall we and juries affea not to underdand what every illiterate man uuderdands to be libellous ? The principle of innocence in thefe publications, on account of their pretended difquifitions on the yellow fever, is not juft ; but if it was eftablifhed, it'would not help the defendant. What difcuffion on the fyftem, or what refpecting the treatment, or what that tends to fhew that fyftem to be ridiculous, do you find in thefe publications ? 1 A»ill defy the counfel to point cut a (ingle fyllable either as to the nature, origin or treatment of the yellow fever ; net a word even to rid.cule the politions laid doAvn ! Does the ridicule appear to be aimed at the system or the profeffion- al reputation and character of the phyfician I that, fays Mr. Harper, is the queftion. You may not, fays he, combat the fyllem by dedroy- ing the reputation of the practitioner—So far we agree. To this ted, thus furnilhed by the opponents counfel I appeal—If the defendant did enter into the nature and application of the remedies, I am quite un- informed ; hut I think he did not. Let us fee how he attacked the fyftem and not the man, as is pretended. The fir ft publication intro- duced begins with two lines, wherein it is reprefented tint Dr. Rulh is one quack holding converfation with another. Now, gentlemen, 1 would fubmit one queftion to your uudeidatiding :—is it the iyftem that he calls a Potent ^jack, or is it Dr. ixuih ? Is it the fyftem that he has ftigmatized with the degrading epithet of Don Sangrado, or is it Dr. Rufh perfonally ? Who was this Don Sangrado ?—Mr. Harper has told y?u m part— A Quack damned to everlasting fame, in the novel of Gil Bias.—What could be the meaning when it was applied to Dr. Rulh ? What would vou think of it, if you were to be called M,fe, Cadcllo ?-ima;i who praailing merchandize, was arraigned and convicted ot afa.ui 111 tins court. Would you put up with tv- infolt, m.-rcl/ becaufe the [>eri.,n who called you f:. fhould fay « I wr.s only difcufong a ce.uffi n 01 commerce IMPORTANT TRIAL* commerce ?" If this was to be done in a public paper, would you1 treat it Avith filent contempt ? William Cobbett, at the time he made thefe publications, whatever defence he has noAv let up to the contrary, did not mean to adopt the fubterfuge which is now ufed. He meant to put it beyond all kind of doubt Avho he meant; for led all these names Ihould not be perfectly underttood; as if fome perfons Avouid flill be at a lofs to know who he meant that dishonored bis profession, and was not worthy tbe public con^ fidence ; he proceeds on to the introduaion of Spilfbury's advertife- ment, which pretends with the fame remedy to cure all manner of dif- eafes, however different their nature, calling it firft, " a puff equal to Dr. Rufh's," and concluding " there, beat that it you can." Thus, you fee, this §>uack, this ridiculous Empyric is, forfooth, put upon the fame footing with Dr. Rufh !—It would intuit your underftandings to infinuate that this vvas not to degrade Dr. Rufli. Nay, he exprefsly fays in one of his public papers that be would demolish tbe fortress of bis reputation. Now, gentlemen, I afk you whether it is the fyftem or the man at- tacked ? he loads the Dr. Avith all kinds of epithets which malice and ill nature could poilibly invent ; holding him up as a vain puffer ; Avhen the language of the law is exprefs that " you may not impute to a man vain boafting." A child could not be at a lofs to underdand the meaning of thefe attacks.—The idea of attacking the fydem was an atter thought ; it originated in the ingenuity of the counfel ; be- caufe the defendant has never once faid that he underttood it, or was able to produce an argument againd it. It Avas not the fydem which he attacked, Avhen he afcribed to Dr. Rufh the vain boading practice of courting and making encomiums upon himfelf, and raifing a re nuta- tion which he did not deferve, hy writing letters aud anfwering them himfelf, &c. What Avould you think of a man who Avould interfere in the decifi- on of a caufe, in Avhich property to the amount of millions Avas depend- ing, or in a cafe of life and death, that Avould tell you at the fame time, he neither undei flood the caufe, nor had ftudied the merits of it, nor the guilt or innocence of the accufed, and afterwa.ds fay he Avas only in jed, he was only laughing; would you not declare he Avas like the man in holy writ, who " threw firebrands, arrows and death, and faid, / am only in sport ?" Gentlemen, the queftions Avhich have been made, and which the learned counfel have exerted themfelves fo much to overthrow, are an- fwered by Cobbet himfelf. In the dialo ue between him and Dr. Cox, does he fpeak as though he wiihed to convince the public ; as though he Avas attacking the fydem only ? No, he does not pretend to have fpent a moments reflection either as to the fydem, or the caufe, but that i>? knew nothing at all about it, he Avas only laughing about it, as his learned counfel lay ! Here the *•' cloven foot" plainly appears, he acknowledges that if it had not been Dr. Rudi who l'upported the mode of treatment, he (heuld not have troubled himfelf about it. " Out of ..he abundance of the heart tbe mouth ipeaketh." Little thought he that he w s furnifliing evidence againd himfelf it the trb'. In IMPORTANT TRIAL. In September, 1797, he fets out ftigmatizing him Avith the epithet of " QUACK." Was not this the way to dedroy his reputatiou, hy writing him down, by making the people believe he was a quack ? Will gentlemen contend this is not actionable ? If he is a quack in the yel- low fever, is he not to be prefumed a quack in eveiy other difea.e . If a man undertakes to be a phyfician when he does not underdand the nature or the cure of thediforder, is that man to be truited ? It has been laid that Dr. Rulh's perfon was not attacked becaufe his family was not. Who could be ignorant of the contemptible point of view in which Dr. Rufli was held up at this time, and furely his family muft be very anxious as to his fate, and the intuits he un- derwent. This, to me, is a good proof that it was the medical fk.ll of Dr. Rufh that was attacked, for we find in other parts of the pub- lications that" Rufli and tbe Ruflutes" are held in a very contempti- ble point of view, not being able to diftinguifh betAveen the fmall pox and the yellow fever, and the declaration is made, that pregnant avo- men Avere fent by them to the hofpital, thus fuggefling but in terms Avhich cannot be miflaken, the grofs ignorance of this " Matter Bleed-* er," this " Potent Quack." But fay the Pliintin's Counfel this is not particularly aimed at Dr. Rulh ; it refers to a Avhole clafs. Bat, Gentlemen, is it the less cri- minal becaufe the infinuations extend to a whole class, indead of one individual? It is more a difcuffion or" the fydem on M it account. No, it cannot act as an extenuation, but an agg'ravation «ff the flander.— Can you conceive that thsuntroduaion of D.\ i'ilcon, and this lcuer concerning him Avas necefflfe^ to the m~re difcuflioi' of the fyliem? 'Tis true that no aaion has been brought by Dr. 1 ilton, but dbbett appears to be following up his abufe upon Dr. Rufh by that circunn ftance, reprefenting Dr. Tilton a; a violent party irmi ; mentioning him as ill formed, and that his judgment was wrong in as much as he miftook abruifc on the arm of a wema:. for the yellow fever. He attacks him as a Rufhite and a " Bleeder,''—As one of the exterminating Daemons. Infinuations, Avith fo much explanation, are folly equal to direa attacks. What means the iufmuation " that dead men tell no tales," &e. but that he delighted in deftroy ing his felloAV-creatures. That they are infi nuations does not dedua from the criminality. It is far worfe than open attack, becaufe it adds meanness to main.. The Avoids " Empyric" and u Quatk," are ufed through his whole refleaions on Dr. Rudi. We may therefore, afk what means the word " Quack ?" " A boadful pretender to an art which he does not underdand ;— a vain boaftful pretender to Phyfic ; one Avho proclaims his oavh medi- cal abilities in public places. So the learned Addifon explains it. P'pe calls it " an artful trickingpraaitionerin phyfic."—" a mountebank; a bold and ignorant pretender to the art of phyfic." It is a word of a determined, afc crtained meaning, more fo than even bankrupt to a merchant.—Thus illiberally has he treated Dr. Rulh, but has not ex- plained-when bleeding ought, or ought not to be ufed; what is rr.ei.e- rate and Avhat exceflive bleeding ; nor an idea of the e\ils cf the prac- tice ; but with the moft inquifitorial meannefs, has blackened what he IMPORTANT TRIAL. could not attempt to confute. Can it be pretended that he was not Avell acquainted with the meaning of the Avoids he ufed? No, for at another period Ave perceive him boading of his claffical ••ading. He has defignedly called Dr. Rulh a boadful pretender to phytic, an art which he did not underdand ; and this will appear from his falle lep e- fentaiion of the Doctor's conduct in writing letters, Sec. Indeed in one place he fays, the " citizens we-e duped" by that gentleman's condua. It therefore cannot be doubted that he has been guilty of a libel. While this profufion of abufe is heaping on an innocent head, his counfel think to leffen his 'eri'fftuhty by calling D c'-ior Rufh a man as gre-.'sician, becaufe he was a "Republican." I think it is pe'foaiy evident that he \, as not aauated by any motive to difcui's any fvftem for foe cure of the yellow-fever.—Let us examine the fa'.s. The defendant began his prefis earfi. in 1796: the fentiments of Dr. Rufh and his mode of treatment were perfectly notorious in 1793. I call upon the counfel, even at this late hour, to fhew one word about Dr. Rufh in that paper previous to the eulogium in De- cember 1796—immediately afterwards the defendant thinks him " too republican," and he fays "damn him, I will attack him for it." I argue, the medxal fydeai of Dr. Rulh being well known in 1793, wn7 did he wait till the fpring of 1797 before he th.catened, and till the September following before he executed his threat ? Not a fingle \70rd about Ids republican principles! I know the ingenious turn that was endeavored to be given to thefe Avords—that he would attack tbe principle. No, gentlemen, the witnefs would not give the anfwer in that *vay : no, laid he, he difapproved of the principle and he avouW attack him for it. I trufl we are all Republicans—Is there a man who hears me that does not feel and indignation in his bread that an alien fhould abufe him becaufe he is a republican ! The citizen of the United States who is not a republican, is a traitor. I am by choice a republican ;— I am fo by crth : The conflitution of the United States is a republi- can form of government, and a republican form of government is guaianteccl to each State. Bat fays the gentleman, there is a fenfe in Avhich republicanism is affumed, it may mean demccrat or sans culloite : But I afk, do they 1'ioav any paragraph in his Avritmgs or any aaion of his life in which hedtes not a',o.v himfelf a republican, not in forced, but in the confti- tutional fenfe cf the v/oid. Whun a term is 1 fed, of determinate fenfe in the conflitution of 11 y countiy, I ought to be underttood in that fenfe. And has Dr. Rulh from ihe memorable day on which he voted for, and (igned the declaration of our independence, till the pre- fent mc'.nc.it ever proved himfelf to be any other than a republican in the conflLuiior.al fenfe : The ifoinuations of his deviation might have beeu ip.ied, foce they are totally void of foundation. But republi- ca.iifm is tne whole extent of the effence for which he is to be perfe- cted while bving, and his very afiVs raked up to obtain a vindiaive ffoiifacti'i) upon his mangled memory after his death! And for all this fh itjvce fay, Go, and take a bexmg match wiiti William Cob- felt? No, gentlemen, courts and juries will give a righteous ar.d liciiortibk" deti.ii.ii. I do not oncer at his refentment againd Dr. Rufh : he is one of thefe who in the language of the Prefident of the Lnfo.d States, have done tzo much, suffered too hauh, and succeeded too well in our glorious druggie for libeit;\ ever to be forgiven. Gentlemen, I conceive an appeal to your feelings to be fair, becaufe by temperate ceductions I have ettablifhed faas :—I fee the fun fhine, and the fhowers defcend— 1 aften.aids fee the grafs grow : I thence form a natural conclufica that one is the caufe, the other the effea. The ingenious evafion of the gentlemen, IMPORTANT TRIAL. gentlemen, that it v,-^ the political opinion he t threatened to Dr. Dewees to attack, will nt do : no, he muft approach under a mafked battery : the political e.uimciit was tbe real ground of the offence. When the threat was made, the opportunity to execute it Avas wanting; he therefore fuffered the malice to lie in his bread, until one the mofl fit that could poffibly occur made its appearance : one Avhich could not p jfffbly at the time of the threat have entered into the contemplation of the defendant. But the meafure was refolved on—the death war- rant was prepared—a mere fit opaortunity could not have been Avifhed for than the fever cf 1797 in nne refpcd, nor one lefs fit in another. We cannot reflea on the iituation of our deplorable city at that pe- riod, and not be ftruck with hoiror at the recollection. We fee the patient in extreme didrefs, ftretched on his bed of ficknefs; phyficians themfelves at a let., how to relieve that diftrefs. It Avas at this event- fi.l period. William Cobbett began his malevolent attacks; tending to withdraw the confidence of the unhappy patients from their phyfician, and thus doubling their aihiaion. Farther. This attack was not only threatened, but Avith violence : he affigns his reafon, '• Damn him, I will attack him for it."—fhe reputation of Dr. Rufli was intimately connected Avith his political fentimet.ts, and therefore he attacks the phyfician—It is oblervable, that Avhen he firft threatens the attack, fo for was he from being ac- tuated by a with to repel an improper mode of practice in Dr. Rufh as a phyfician, that in that character he ("peaks of him as liable to no exception: He Avitties him to confine himfelf wholly to his practice as a phyfician, and not to meddle Avith politic.-.. But Dr. Rufh Avas his ob- ject. '• Malice rankles in his heart," and a few expreffions which li.id their way cut now and then, prove it to be deep rooted.—He con felted he knew nothing about the practice. Doctors Griffith and Phyfic, commonly made ufe of the medicine and practice of Dr. Rufh, and to as greai a degree, but they h ad fpo- ken no eulogium ; they had made no ufe of any republican exordiums, and therefore they efcaped withcut a fingle remark. Farther than that, Cubbett employed a family pf/fician or* the fame fchool : Dr. Dcv.ecs, who followed the fame mode of treatment, attended on the family. All this proves the meaning ot the words ufed to Dr. Cox : that if it had not been fopported by Dr. Rufli, he Ihouldnot have troubled him- felf about it. Fit thefe reafons, gentlemen, I think I may prefume, Avithout the poffibility of a d- ubt, that you will be of the opinion, that the action is well founded : that the Avords are, in themfelves, actionable, and that thev imply m--A.ice. But we have not relied on the legal ground, as a.e might with fafety: Ave have gone forfoer, we have foewn that pe.ioiK.l refentment mitigated to the malicious attack, and that it >*ai the fole and entire motive. Gendemen, I do not wifh to introduce cfomeffic fcenes unneccffi- r'.lv ; but furely Avhen Ave c. ntempftte injuries and damages fufoii.ieJ, Ave may, at lead, relate what edca it mi0ht probably have en the family. Doctor Rulh was engaged amidd kei es of dan er a. u death , pot only expofed to, but actually attacked by that urctukal difeafe. IMPORTANT TRIAL. His family Avere refiding in the country. Inftead of receiving letters from him, bis affliction was so severe be could not wite, fuppofe they receive thefe papers, in which he is ftigmatized a " murderer" and " quack" and th-ugh he might furvive the contagion, his charaaer fhould remain afperfed and his memory after hisrdeath. So undeferv- ing public confidence.— Would this have no effcd on his family ? We have heard much about the l.berty of the prefs. I think I would not yield to any man in fincere edimation of that invaluable right; 1 confider it the eve of our political body, and I would much rather a foeck a fmall blemifh fhould remain, than that by a rafli and un- flcilfol operation the noble organ itfelf fhould receive an injur}'. But it is dilficult to run the precife line in compofing the happy medium which the conflitution has formed for the fupport of every thing which is dear to a citizen. In the conflitution formed for Corlica, vide annual re- gifter of 1794 p. 90 are thefe Avoids: " The liberty of the prefs is de- creed, but the abufe of it is left to the laAv." Private reputation and character is protected by the conflitution, the great fundamental laAv of this ftate. Gentlemen, I acknowledge that this cafe, now about to be decided by you, is one of the moft important ever intruded to a jury of this country. It is true that for a long time pad the licentioufi efs of the prefs has been extreme: neither the government nor individuals have efcaped: no merit of character has fcreencd the individual from attack through that medium. It is therefore that you ought to keep a ttea- dy Avatch over thofe intentions upon the good order of fociety, for it is Avith you to protea charaaer and government, Avhich if you neglect, like the droppings of rain on a ftone, it will Avear it imperceptibly away: though the progrefs be Aoav, the effect is certain. Gentlemen, you muft take human nature as you find it, and we fhould not better it had we the power of formation : of the laAv does not give fatis^aaion for injuries, it is a feiitiment written on the heart of man that be will obtain it, and no law will then flop his refentment. Of what avail,it will be argued, was it for me to reftrain the impetuofi- ty of my temper and a a.vait the courfe pointed out by die laAvsof my country : In vain do I refpea them unlefs damages are given fufficient to flop the progrei^ of a grofs offence.—You will have no more com- plaints of this fort, but they will be obtained in another, and mod fatal way, if the law is not fufficiently ttrong to cuib it. In England Ave find that juries underttood this fubjea' perfectly well.—Mr. Tilghman fays it was a general avarrant which affected the individual liberty which made them fo fevere in the cafes referred to. The judge faid it ought to be exemplary in order to protea the magna charta : fo we fay. So ought you to fay in your verdict: it is not the injury fuftained by Dr. Rufh by the number of patients he has loft. The gentleman read the declaration and made fome obfervations upon the blanks. He fays no fpecial damages are laid. Are Ave to run about to enquiie who never came to Dr. Rufh on this account? If that is re- qu'ued, it may as well be faid at once that Ave fhall have no damages, and that men fhall publifh what they pleafe with impunity ! 1MIVKTANI 'lRIALi L As I obferved bcfo'-e, in England juries underttand tlid matter per- feaiy well. If a linel involves the public peace and gocd, fpecific injr.ies are not confidered. In the cafe of a young lady Avhole chaf- tity was attacked, 4000^. was awarded. 1 hope D.-. Rufh will not have to fay as a gentleman in Scotland once faid, " Oh that I had brought forward this trial in England, for " there the J uy Avould take care the verdict fhould be fuch as Avould " do honor to their impartiality." Gentlemen, the precedent cannot fail to have a defirable effect, if you gfoe fmtable damarte.-,. Inftances eldun occur in Pennfylvania of this nature, but in one not long fince the Jury proved that they will kneAV the importance of private charac- ter : a perfon was proceeded againd ex parte by one of the German religious focieties, and excluded. The proceeding was entered upon the books of the Society. As it was an attack upon character, the man brought an action, and the Jury gave averdiCt for the plaintiff of 500^. damages. Cafe, Stock againd the German corporation. Gentlemen, confider the fituation of Dr. Rufli at the time of at- taa;—\ Phyfician of confiderable ability in his art—at a period when his whole attention was doubtlefs engaged for the advantage of a de- plorable city : when not an Herb nor Drug efcaped hisutmoll refearch- es; when not a part of the Human Syftem but he pryed into ; all his learning, all his ingenuity on the foil ftretch. The life of thoufands in his hands, an important charge! Surrounded with difficulties, and thus indefatigably engaged he is reprefented as the mod defpicable of the human race. I afk you, gentlemen, whether this did not difable him from profecuting his important purfuits ? much of cure in fuch deplorable fituations, depend on the confidence of the patient in his Phyfician, often more than in medicine : we know how much final! fhocks affect the mind fo Aveakened by difeafe___Who can tell what numbers perilhed from thefe publications in this way ? We are told that though Dr. Rufh has his merit, he no doubt had his reward. I afk hoAv he could receive his reAvard? among A\hat clafs of perfons did his praaice extend ? We \rell know th-.t the rich had left the city, and therefore the thoufands upon whom he attended could not pay him : it Avould have been to his advantage to have lefc the city, for a man of hi- eminence could have commanded bufinefs any Avhere, but his point was to difcover if podible, an allev'utxn of the general diftrefs by examining aad exploring this new (pedes of difeafe, which hasfb often baffled the utmoft fkill cf talents. As to the merit of the defendant. It is faid that he was of great ufe at a certain time in giving* an alarm to the citizens of this country againd foreign influence. I Avill tell you hoAv far he went, and no farther: He did not wish to destroy, but to change this foreign influence. He Aviflied to deftroy it when it came from cr.e foreign country, and place it on another. But to Americans feii'iblc ■:>:" the hi.li del'- tinies of their country, what is it from whom the in.tuence cumes ? it ought to be wholly dedroyed, come Avhence it may from France or irom Britain. I do not know that I need take up your time in referring to the •pu.ijn scn.ertanrtd of the plaintiff 111 other countries: fuffice it to fay thai IMPORTANT TRW* that ?Im*ift every Phil fooliical and medical fociety in the world have h«>n red his charaaer. He is an honorary member of almoft every fo- ciety in Europe, or in the Avorld. Dr. Trotter, the celebrated r'hyfi- cian in England fpeaks of him in terms ftrongly indicative of the ve- neration in which he is held abroad. Although fo great is his character and reputation, yet I acknow- ledge that the cale is betAveen A. plaintiff andJB. defendant. But ah though your verdia muft be according to evidence and juflice, yet you muft not be unmindful of charaaer in order duly to eftimate the da- mages. If Dr. Rufh had not obtained a Avell earned reputation, I fhould not be prelfing upon you to bear teftimony to that character by exemplary damages, but the malevolent defign, the fpite and the ill na- ture is much blackened by the uprightnefs of charaaer procured and preferved for many year by the plaintiff. Gentlemen I thank you for your attention—I mutt in my conclufi- on beg you to confider the great evils of slander. Permit me to at- tempt its definition. Amongft all the offences that degenerate man- kind can commit is one of the greateft : there is nothing that an honeft and bra\re man has fo much to fear. Man need not dread aworstfoe—it stabs with award—It is tbe pesti* Lence walking in darkness, spreading contagion far and wide, which tbe most cautious traveller cannot avoid.—Ciornage cannot defend against its insidious attacks—It is the heart searching dagger of the dark as* s •-".—It is tbe poisoned arrgiv whose wound is incurable.—It is tbe mortal sting of tbe deadly adder :—nor Government nor officer nor individual can resist its fatal effects without tbe aid of law.—* Mur- der is its employment; innocence and merit its prey, and ruin its SPORT. H TRIAL WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D., MILTON FULLER, M.D., SAMUEL GREGG, M.D., H. L H. HOFFENDAHL, M.D., GEORGE RUSSELL, M.D., I. T. TALBOT, M.D., DAVID THAYER, M.D., and BENJ. H. WEST, M.D., ALL OF BOSTON, FOR PRACTISING HOMEOPATHY, WHILE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY, BEFORE JEREMIAH SPOFFORD, M.D............of GROVELAND. AUGUSTUS TORREY, M.D..............OF BEVERLY. GEORGE HAYWARD, M.D...............of BOSTON. FREDERIC "WINSOR, M.D............OF WINCHESTER. FRANCIS C. GREENE, M.D...........of EASTHA.MPTON. ON THE COMPLAINT OF LUTHER PARKS, M.D..................OF BOSTON. R. L. HODGDON, M.D...............of ARLINGTON. THOMAS L. GAGE, M.D..............OF WORCESTER. ASA MILLET, M.D...............of BRIDGEWATER. BENJAMIN B. BREED, M.D................OF LYNN. •c ■■■/',„ ---H il. .utiuj., - PRIM-TED FOR' r 7 to both the Charges and all the Specifications under the same, he says that 10 he cannot lawfully or justly be deprived of his property and fran- chise and valuable interests in the Massachusetts Medical Society, or suspended from the use of the same, or in any way be punished by said Society, on the ground that he is a member of the Massa- chusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, and has faith in the general principles known as homoeopathy, and conforms his general prac- tice honestly and honorably thereto, while at the same time he is not precluded from the use of any or all methods at his discretion now practised by intelligent physicians who have not faith in homoeopathy (instances of which he has above stated), and has no theories or practice respecting surgery, obstetrics, anatomy, phys- iology, hygiene, or dietetics not open to and common among physicians of all schools ; and he is engaged in scientific study of the whole subject of health and disease, and is under no obliga- tions, individual or associate, interfering, with his duty to accept any results of science, or with the promotion of the purposes of the Massachusetts Medical Society, as defined by law. And while the said Society have recognized him as duly educated and prop- erly qualified for the duties of his profession, and make no charges of want of knowledge or of intelligence, or of any false pretences or deception, or of any immorality, or of any conduct actually dishonorable, that to punish him in any manner, under these circumstances, on a charge of dishonorable conduct, would be a false pretence before the community, and a perversion of the purposes, privileges, and powers of the Massachusetts Medical Society, in order to injure such members of the same as honestly hold opinions as to medicine, recognized by law as legitimate, but differing from those of the persons who have or suppose themselves to have at the present time the power to control the said Society. (Signed) WM. BUSHNELL. The other members accused filed an answer similar to the above with the exception of Dr. West, who presented the following. ANSWER OF BENJ. H. WEST, M. D., TO THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. The undersigned denies that the practising or professing to practise according to the system of homoeopathy, or belonging to the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, is conduct°un- becoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and denies that the purpose of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is at variance with the principles of, or tends to disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. BENJ. H. WEST. Boston, April 29, 1873. 11 EVIDENCE FOR TIIE DEFENCE. The following documentary evidence was introduced in the case of Dr. Bushnell, and was accepted by the board of trial as ap- plying to all the cases: — 1. The Act of Incorporation of the Massachusetts Homoeo- pathic Medical Society, showing that membership of the said So- ciety was authorized by law. 2. That section of the By-laws of said society relating to mem- bership, as originally adopted. 3. That portion of the present By-laws of said Society relating to the objects of the Society and to membership. 4. The Act of Incorporation of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Hospital. 5. The Act of Incorporation of the Homoeopathic Medical Dis- pensary. C. The Act of Incorporation of the New England Homoeopathic Medical College. 7. Correspondence with the Treasurer of the Massachusetts Medical Society, showing that the accused had faithfully paid their dues to the Society. The following is a resume of testimony introduced. It was pro- posed by the accused to give it under oath, but the chairman ruled that the word of any respectable physician would be accepted by the board. EVIDENCE OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D. I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1856, and joined the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society two years later; I considered the object of the Homoeopathic Society to be to improve that branch of the healing art in which drugs are applied to remove the symptoms of disease; while I believe homoeopathic medicines to be the be>t for this purpose, I have never signed anjr pledge to practise only in accordance with this theory, and if any better sys- tem can be shown I shall be happy to learn it; have never known any effort on the part of homoeopathic doctors or members to disor- ganize or destroy, or in any way disturb, the Massachusetts Medical Society. Tin: Chairman. Have you ever been hindered from investigat- ing any branch of the science of medicine by the Massachusetts Medical Society? Dr. Busiinki.l. If this trial is not to hinder such investigation, I am at loss to understand what it is for. 12 Dr. Hodgdox. When you joined the societ}- were you not asked by the censors if you practised homoeopathy ? Dit. Bushnell. I was asked what my opinion of the system of homoeopathy was, and answered that I was not aware that there was such a " system." I began to investigate homoeopathy about one year after joining this society. The Chairman. Do you think a physician should confine him- self to the practice of homoeopathy in all cases ? Dr. Bushnell. There is much in a physician's practice to which homoeopathy cannot apply. If, in an obstetric case, it becomes necessary to use the forceps, the instrument should be applied " heroically." This and surgery are not properly the practice of medicine, though medicine might be required as accessory in the treatment. I have never, in any way to my knowledge, sought to destroy or disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. EVIDENCE OF MILTON FULLER, M.D. I have practised medicine about fifty years ; I joined the Massa- chusetts Medical Society in 1842, and paid dues regularly till 1862, when I was placed on the retired list. I was one of the original corporators of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society; its object was to examine the action of medicines in accordance with the homo-opathic law, and to develop, as far as possible, this system of medicine; it was in no way designed, nor has it ever acted in opposition to the Massachusetts Medical Society ; it has in no way sought to destroy or disorganize that Society ; it has no By-law or pledge by which its members are restricted to any ex- clusive theory or dogma in their practice ; every member is left perfectly free to give such medicine and use such treatment as he thinks best for his patient; I am convinced of the curative effect of minute, homoeopathic closes in severe diseases, and, if not allowed to use them in such cases, would at once retire from practice. The Chairman. Have you ever been prevented by the Massa- chusetts Medical Society from making any investigations youmiwht choose? . ° Dr. Fuller. No ; but this prosecution arises on account of such investigations, and of my belief in and practice of homoeopathy. Dr. Talbot. Have you ever known anv investigation of ho- moeopathy to be made by the Massachusetts Medical Society? Dr. Fuller. I never have. „ D*■ TtLB?T' D° y°U kn0W 0f any By4aw of the Massachusetts Medical Society to prevent your making investigations in homoe- opathy or of joining any society which makes such investigations' tv ww LER' *u?> Uf' 1 neVer heard of any such B3'-°aw, and think that any such By-law would be inconsistent with the Charter of this Society. 13 EVIDENCE OF H. L. H. HOFFENDAHL, M.D. I received my medical diploma from Harvard University in 1852. Then went to Europe and spent two years in continuing my medi- cal studies. In 1854, immediately upon my return from Europe, I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society, and was admitted with- out any questions being asked as to how I intended to practise. From that time until now, I have been uninterruptedly engaged in the practice of medicine in Boston. My method of practice has been simply to use any method of treatment that I consider necessary for the benefit of my patients. I have used so-called homoeopathic remedies, and so-called allo- pathic remedies, cold-water treatment, electricity, hygienic mea- ures, etc., without admitting that any individual or any society had the right to dictate to me what treatment I must adopt. After practising in this manner for a number of years, it was suggested to me by members of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society that, as I was in the habit of using homoeopathic treatment, it was proper that I should join the homoeopathic society, in order to define my position, and that I might not be accused of double-dealing or dishonesty. It was well known that physicians, members of the Massachu- setts Medical Society, but not professedly homoeopaths, and not members of the Homoeopathic Society, were in the habit of using houneopathic remedies clandestinely; that is: in the sick room, with doors closed, they would confidentially inform their patients that they were competent to practise homoeopathy, and would ad- minister homoeopathic remedies, — while before the world they would deny any belief in that system. Now, such a course, it appears, is allowed to members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, but it is not considered by me to be either honest or honorable. My course, therefore, seemed clear. I joined the Homoeopathic Society in 1857, in order to put on record the met that I did, when I chose, use so-called homoeopathic treatment openly, and denied the power or right of any man or body of men to refuse me that privilege. Since joining the Homoeopathic Society, I have not altered my method of practice in the least; using homoeopathic treatment when I thought proper, and continuing to use any other remedy or method of treatment that I considered as likely to be of benefit to my patients. And I can truly testify that in pursuing this course I have not been hindered or annoyed or threatened with expulsion by the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society. I can testify that there has been nothing exclusive or illiberal in the action of that Society ; that I have been allowed that perfect freedom of thought 14 and action, which every medical man, who believes that medicine is a free science, demands as his right and prerogative. Dr. Hodgdon. Have you been hindered in making any com- munication to the Massachusetts Medical Society, on the subject of homoeopath}'? Dr. Hoffendahl. Not hindered and not encouraged.^ It is well known that communications at the meetings of the Society are not allowed, except by preliminary arrangement, and such has never been offered to me. Dr. Talbot. Have you ever been invited to make any report concerning homeopathy, before the Society? Dr. Hoffendahl. Never. EVIDENCE OF GEORGE RUSSELL, M.D. I am seventy-seven years old; have been in practice fifty-three years; began to investigate homoeopathy in 1846 or 184 7, and have since continued such studies ; 1 believe it is the best system of medicine, but should be very glad to find an}' better; have never sought to injure, destroy, or disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Societ}-, but have sought to learn from it as much as pos- sible. Think that if homoeopathy were investigated by the Society it would greatly benefit its members. The Chairman. Why, if you believe in homoeopathy, do you remain in the Massachusetts Medical Society? Dr. Russell. Because I see no good reason why I should leave it. It is a society designed to include all educated physicians of good character, and has nothing to do with medical opinions or belief. Dr. Hodgdon. What is allopathy ? Dr. Russell. I suppose, from the derivation of the word, it means the opposite of homoeopathy. Dr. Hodgdon. Do you consider the Massachusetts Medical Society an allopathic society? Dr. Rlssell. I do not, though some of its members may be allopaths. If the Society were such, I should leave it at once. EVIDENCE OF DAVID THAYER, M.D. I have been practising medicine for thirty years; I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society in the year 1845, and was one of the original corporators of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, in 1856 ; its object is the improvement of the science of medicine in accordance with the principle similia similibxis curantur • homoeopathy is not yet perfect, and the object of the Society is to improve it; I have never known of an effort being made on the part of the members of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Soci- ety to destroy or injure the Massachusetts Medical Society 15 There is not, and never has been, required from the members of the Homeopathic Medical Society a pledge to practise in accord- ance with any particular theory. The Chairman. Do you consider it honorable, as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, to practise homeopathy? Dr. Thayer. Perfectly so. The Society is chartered by law for physicians of every school. Education and character are, by that charter, the only requisites for membership. Medical opinions legally form no part of the qualifications of members Dr. Talbot. Do you consider it honorable, as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, to give unmedicated sugar pellets, and pretend that they are homeopathic medicine ? Dr. Thayer. I should consider it very dishonorable and down- right dishonesty. Dr. Talbot. If it were known that a physician was in the habit of practising such deception, should you think him sufficiently honorable to be worthy of'a place on any board of trial? Dr. Thayer. No ; I should think he deserved expulsion from any honorable society. Dr. Talbot. Will you state the history of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society? Dr. Thayer. It was first established in 1840 by four or five physicians, and was called the Homeopathic Fraternity. Its meetings were informal and social in character, and were held at the houses of the members. As the numbers increased, the name was changed to The Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, about 1850, and in 1856 it was chartered by the State without any change in the objects of the Society, which were to develop a branch of medicine not cultivated by the Massachusetts Medical Society. At present there are between one and two hundred members of the Homeopathic Society. The Chairman. Have you ever been prevented by the Massa- chusetts Medical Society from making any investigations in regard to homeopathy? Dr. Thayer. No, I never have; and from many of the mem- bers who knew that I believed in, and practised, homeopathy, I have received only the greatest courtesy and kindness ; but there are members of this Society, who, at its meetings, and at other times and places, have gone out of their way to insult those mem- bers who believe in homeopathy; and I consider that this prose- cution is designed to prevent the investigation of homeopathy by members of this Societ}'. EVIDENCE OF I. T. TALBOT, M.D. At the time I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1S54 I was a member, and was known to be the secretary, of the Homeo- pathic Society; the president, Dr. George Hay ward, senior, when 16 he signed my diploma, jocosely remarked that he did not know but we should have a majority of homeopaths in the Society soon ; I have continued a member in this Society till the present time, reg- ularly paying my dues, and have never sought to introduce any disturbing topics into the Society. For twenty years I have been familiar with the action of the Homeopathic Society, and have never known it, or any of its mem- bers, to seek to destroy, or disorganize, or in any manner injure the Massachusetts Medical Society. There is no oath or pledge bind- ing its members to any particular theory in practice; nor is there, in my opinion, anything in the membership of the Homeopathic Society in the least inconsistent with the membership of the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is a special society, like the Gynaecological or Ophthalmological Societies. It cultivates a single idea or branch of medicine which the general society has neglected. The Chairman. When you joined the Homeopathic Society, why did n't you leave this? Dr. Talbot. For the reason that I did not cease to be a physician ; and this Society was chartered for the purpose, and with the design, to include every educated plrysician in the State. The Chairman. Have you ever been prevented from presenting your homeopathic views in the Society ? Dr. Talbot. I have never been prevented, but I knew that the mere mention of homeopathy was offensive to certain members, and I did not wish to do anything to disturb in the least the har- mony of the Society. Perhaps it would have been better to have presented our views and had them discussed within the Society, but it was from no wish to destroy or disorganize the Society that this was not done. EVIDENCE OF C. W. SWAN, M.D. In answer to questions by Dr. Talbot. I am Secretary of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and have been for several years. The society has about 1,200 members. Think it is as prosperous now as ever before. Have never known the accused to do anything to injure or destroy the society. So far as I know they have been peaceable members of the society. R. L. Hodgdon, M. D., the prosecutor, refused to testify. The accused offered to present the testimony of every member of the Massachusetts Homepathic Medical Society, if it were ne- cessary to prove that the object and character of that Society was such as had been already stated by witnesses. The Chairman. Cumulative evidence on these points will not be necessary, and will not add to the strength of testimony. The accused proposed at this point to present no further evidence. ARGUMENTS FOR THE ACCUSED. Dr I. T. TALBOT then read the following argument in defence of Dr. Bushnell, which was also accepted as the argument for Dr. Hoffendahl, Dr. Russell, and himself. (•'pntlemen of the Board of Trial: — Rarely, perhaps never, in the history of medical jurisprudence, has there been such a spectacle as is presented here today. Rarely, in any times, certainly never in modern times, has there been anything like it in civil or criminal jurisprudence. We are summoned here, at the peril of loss of val- uable interests, and of injury to our good names, to answer to charges of a most serious description, before a tribunal selected b}- our opponents, sitting with closed doors, all legal counsel pro- hibited us, all means excluded of securing a satisfactor}7 report of what takes place heref the most usual and necessary aids of assist- ants or amanuenses prohibited ; and, when we offer to prove facts which would exclude one of your number from sitting in trial upon us on every principle of justice, the Board has no ear for our com- plaint. We protest against this tribunal as not constituted in accordance with the By-laws of our Society, for the reasons already presented to you. We protest agaiiut it further, as constituted in a manner unfair and unjust, and we believe unknown to modern practice, whether in courts or in societies, where valuable interests and reputations are concerned. The question being the character of homeopathy, and the rights of those who practise it, the court is selected by an opponent of homeopathy, and composed entirely of its opponents. In proceedings analogous to these, where a special court is selected, it is customary to send to the accused a list of names from which they may strike off a certain number, the remainder constituting the court, or to provide some method of reciprocal exclusion and selection. These safeguards against injustice having been disregarded, there is the more reason why a challenge for cause should be allowed. We never heard of a court, however constituted, and for whatever purpose constituted, that refused to entertain a challenge for cause against one of its members. It is not that you decide our grounds of challenge to be insuffi- cient, but you have refused even to hear them, whatever they may be. That you should limit the length of our argument, we admit was a matter of discretion, but we regret that you thought your dis- cretion required you to allow six of us, separately tried, an average of half an hour apiece. This has compelled us to some extent to 2 18 unite in our argument, while in common justice each of us should have had the right to present his views in the manner most satis- factory to himself. But a far greater injustice has been attempted, — an assault upon our reputations, dearer to us than aught this Society can give us. The real charge against us is that we are members of a society, established and encouraged by law, and that we practise medicine after a method recognized by the supreme law of Massa- chusetts as not only legitimate, but as useful and deserving of the highest encouragement. The real charge is that we are homeopa- thists. That is its beginning, middle, and end. Yet the charges are couched in the form which you would apply in the case of a disreputable criminal or outlaw. Each of us is charged with " conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician." The specification is that we are homeopathists. Massachusetts has said in the highest form in which she can utter her voice, that homeopathy is worthy of an honorable physician, and entitles its practitioners to receive the " same degree " of "doctor in medi- cine," as conferred by Harvard University and the Berkshire Medi- cal Institution. Massachusetts has, by its statutes, held out to public confidence and support homeopathic hospitals, dispensaries, and medical colleges, and has consented to put the broad seal of its approval upon the degrees of " doctors in medicine " given by the Homeopathic College. Yet we stand before you to meet the charge, that the holding of such degrees and belonging to such institutions and practising medicine by those methods is dishonor- able. Gentlemen, our prosecutors know that there is no connection between the charge they have made upon us and the facts they have specified. If our accusers think that this Society has a right to expel members otherwise qualified, solely because they are ho- meopathists, let them say so like honorable men. That will raise a fair question of authority and policy. But we resent, and a just community will denounce, an attempt to send us away branded as dishonorable men, when the objection is only that we practise med- icine in a manner allowed and encouraged by law, but which is not in accordance with the opinions of our accusers. It is the accusa- tion that is dishonorable, and not the act imputed to us. We appeal with confidence to you who assume to be our judges, that if you decide against homeopathy and homeopathists, you will say so and no more. If you think membership of the Homeopathic Soci- ety and the practice of homeopathy are inconsistent with member- ship of this Society, we trust you will say so in plain terms, and that you will not, by calling difference of opinion, however great, dishon- orable, lend yourselves as instruments of calumny and injustice. That a virulent party spirit, which identifies difference of opinion in practice with dishonor, should raise up within a large profession accusers enough barely to comply with the requirements of the by- 19 laws, is not a matter of surprise ; but it would be a cause of sur- prise and deep regret, if that spirit should enter into and possess the court itself. We are conscious of the great disadvantages under which we speak. We are aware that, in presenting this protest against these proceedings, and in speaking as plainly as we have felt it our duty to speak, we incur the risk of increasing any prejudice you may have against our cause. It remains for us to bespeak for the special points we present to you the most patient and impartial consideration you can give them ; and this not for our sakes mainly, but for your own, and for the good name of this Society, of which we are all alike members. the powers and objects of the massachusetis medical SOCIETY. This Society is not a private association ; membership of which may depend on the will of the majority. It is a public institution, established by the people, for the good of all the people ; and mem- bership of it is a property and franchise, recognized by law, and of which we cannot be deprived, except for reasons permitted by the law. The majority of the Society can no more deprive us of this right and property by an exercise of its will than it can of any other right or property. Chief-Justice Shaw says of this Society, in his opinion in Barrows v. Bell, 7 Gray, 314 : "The Massachu- setts Medical Society were not a private association. They were a public corporation, chartered by one of the earliest acts under the constitution. . . . The charter invested the Society, their members and licentiates, with large powers and privileges in regu- lating important public interests of the practice of medicine and surgery. . . . This Society was regarded by these legislative acts as a public institution, by the action of which the public would be deeply affected in one of its important public interests, the health of the people. . . . The status or condition of being a member of this Society was one of a permanent character and recognized by law." The Society has a library, a museum, and funds in which we have a vested estate, and to which we have contributed annually. It is a public institution, of which there is a right of membership given b}' law to all persons practising medicine within the Com- monwealth, having certain qualifications prescribed by law. The preamble to the charter (Act Nov. 1, 17^1) is as follows: " As health is essentially necessary to the happiness of society, and as its preservation or recovery are closely connected with the knowledge of the animal economy, and of the properties and effects of medicines; and as the benefits of medical institutions formed on liberal principles and encouraged by the patronage of the law, are universally acknowledged, be it therefore enacted," etc. There we have the foundation stones of the edifice. First, it is a 20 public institution established by law. Second, its object is to pro- mote the knowledge of the animal economy, and of the properties and effects of medicines. Third, for these purposes it is " formed on liberal principles." _ . Having conferred the usual powers of corporations, the charter proceeds"__" And whereas it is clearly of importance that a just discrimination should be made between such as are duly educated and properly qualified for the duties of their profession and those who may ignorantly and wickedly administer medicine, whereby the health and lives of many valuable individuals may be endan- gered or perhaps lost to the community,"—and thereupon establishes a system of tests for membership. Full power and authority was given to examine all candidates who should present themselves, respecting their skill in their pro- fession ; and if, upon such examination, they " shall be found skilled in their profession, and fitted for the practice of it, they shall receive the approbation of the Society, in letters testimonial of such examination under the seal of said Society, signed by the president or such other person or persons as shall be appointed for that purpose." By the next section it appears that if the presi- dent or other person shall obstinately refuse to examine any candi- date so offering himself, each and every such person shall be sub- ject to a fine of £100, to be recovered by said candidate, and to his own use, in any court within the Commonwealth. This is the foundation of the Societ}-, and it will be seen that its whole object was to prevent medicine from being administered, first, ignorantly ; second, wickedly. Not one word is to be found as to whether the candidate practises in-accordance with the opinions of the majority, or whether he believes what is taught in existing schools. There are two qualifications, and two only, and these qualifica- tions have been guarded by the Legislature of Massachusetts, at every point from 1781, till now; and these qualifications are edu- cation and character. We have been admited into this Society, as having the necessary qualifications of education and skill in medicine, and of personal character. There is no charge that we have since lost either of those qualifications. In 17^J the powers and duties of the Society were further defined, and the penalty for refusing to examine " such as may apply" was changed in amount and made applicable to the officer appointed to examine the candidates. The act authorized the Society to describe and point out such medical instruction or education as they should judge requisite for candidates ; but no other course of study or previous preparation seems ever to have been pointed out under this or subsequent acts, than such as is prescribed by the third article of the By-laws, — a sound mind, a good moral char- acter, proper age, some acquaintance with Latin, geometry, and experimental philosophy, previous study of three years with some 21 respectable physician or physicians, and attendance upon two full courses on anatomy, ph> siblog3T, chemistry, materia medica, mid- wifery, and the theory and practice of medicine and surgery. No man's belief or mode of practice was here referred to, and no pledge required, other than was furnished by education and character. The Massachusetts Medical Society did not yet believe it had the power, nor dare to proclaim the will of the majority as absolute truth, and to crush out liberty of thought and freedom of action among its members. In 1803, the Society was authorized to increase its membership beyond seventy, and to choose as members w' any physicians or sur- geons resident within this Commonwealth, " and to confer upon Councillors the powers before exercised by the whole body; and provision was made for the appointment of five Censors to examine " all persons" offering themselves, who had followed the prescribed course of study ; and if approved by a majority of the examiners, and of good moral character, the}' *' shall be " admitted as mem- bers after three years' approved practice. In addition to this, all who have received the degree of Bachelor of Medicine at Harvard University, after three years' practice, '■'•shall be" admitted as members. In 1831, this provision respecting three years' approved practice was repealed. No exclusiveness appears up to this time. The gates swing wide open to men of education and character, and the legislature may be supposed to have intended a pretty liberal basis for the Society when it provided that " all persons, etc." who were able to pass the examination, and that graduates of the medical school at Harvard, without an examination,— embracing, almost necessaril}', men of radical and widely divergent views and habits,— should be admitted members of the Society. In 1836, the revi>ed statutes, chap, xxii, provided for district- ing the State and the appointment of Censors, who, under u pen- alty of four hundred dollars for refusal, shall examine all who offer themselves, if they have received the prescribed education and are duly qualified as candidates ; and they were allowed to admit, with- out examination, persons from other States who had received an education equivalent to that prescribed here, and who had been duly examined and approved by some competent authority Here, again, no test but education and moral character. We look in vain to the statutes for even the faintest sign of favoring any particu- lar school of medicine for the State. If there were aii3' one thing required to prove the general and comprehensive character of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and that it was designed by the State of Massachusetts to include every physician who had any claim as such, the following section of an act passed by the legislature in 1M*, chapter 113, section 1, would be sufficient: — 22 " Be it enacted, etc., That no person entering the practice of physic or surgery after the first day of July next shall be entitled to "the benefit of law for the recovery of any debt or fee accruing for his professional services unless he shall previously to rendering those services have been licensed by the officers of the Massachu- setts Medical Society, hereafter to be designated in this act." It matters not that this law was soon after repealed at the re- quest of the members themselves, the fact remains, that the legisla- ture designed to include all physicians within this Society. No further legislation upon this subject has been made, except in 1859, when we find an act providing that no person shall hereafter become a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, except upon examination by the Censors, but that " Any person of good moral character found to possess the qualifications prescribed by the rules and regulations of said Society shall be admitted a mem- ber of the Societ3r." If this altered the law it was only by the exclusion from membership of the graduates of the Harvard Medi- cal School, or of other medical schools referred to in the By-laws, unless previously examined. The right to refuse membership, to " any person" properly qualified under the rules and regulations is here expressly denied. This bolt, apparently aimed at the old medical schools, cannot be diverted against the homeopathists, for the i ules and regulations provided no other course of study and preparation than we have before referred to, — and the Society was not yet so venturesome as to ask the suppression by law of such of its members as were so earnest in the advancement of medical science as to brave the terrors of its excommunication rather than surrender the rights they acquired under the act of incorporation, and all subsequent enactments. In this rapid review of the legislation in reference to member- ship, we have dwelt only upon the provisions relating to the ques- tion who ma3' become members. We believe, and we defy any one to show proof to the contrary, that Massachusetts meant what she said she did, — to promote medical science, to encourage faithful endeavors to improve the health of her people by any method of study or practice. We deny that it has ever been her policy to foster a special school of medicine, or to raise up barriers against progress and the freest inquiry. Her Medical Society was not incorporated to promote the health of her people in any one way, but long since she took to heart the wise words of old John Robinson, — " more light yet " — and opened the doors to all upright, educated medical men. The power of expulsion the legislature disposed of in lew words In the original act of incorporation it gave the Fellows power to expel or disfranchise any Fellow. No one will claim that this power can be exercised arbitrarily or without just cause. Members of the Society have vested rights in 23 its property and franchise, and they have a reputation as members, and no majority vote can deprive them of it. The test of educa- tion and character having been once applied, some justifiable cause must be shown for taking away what the State has said " shall be" granted. In the case of Barrows against the Massa- chusetts Medical Society (reported in 12 Cushing, Rep. 402), Chief-Justice Shaw, while refusing a mandamus to compel the plaintiff's reinstatement, expresslj- put it upon the ground that the Society had shhwn gross immorality on the part of the petitioner in a professional transaction, and he strongly intimated if the So- ciety had acted in violation of his rights, from haste or prejudice, a mandamus would not have been refused.* The only causes for expulsion from a society of this description are, (1) conviction of an infamous crime by the civil tribunals ; (2) conduct inconsistent with the purposes and well-being of the Bociety. The second head (2) is the only one for inquiry here. It is not enough that a committee of the Societ}- ma)- think our acts inconsistent with its purposes and well-being. The Society was not established by physicians of a certain school, believing or disbelieving a certain dogma, or dogmas, with the purpose of promoting the knowledge and practice of medicine in accordance with the theories of that school. It is not a homeo- pathic,- or an anti-homeopathic society. It is an institution estab- lished and encouraged by public law, for public purposes, in which there is a right of membership upon certain established qualifica- tions, intellectual and moral, having for its object the promotion of the knowledge of anatomy, surgery, pli3'siolog\r and dietetics, and the nature and effects of medicines. It must be conducted upon " liberal principles," and must not discourage the freest inquiries and experiments of science, by putting upon its members the fet- ters of schools. The discrimjnation it is to make, as to membership, is not be- tween schools and theories and dogmas, but between the " duly educated and properly qualified," and those who " ignorantly and wickedly administer medicine." Membership of this Society by practising physicians and sur- geons, having the requisite moral and intellectual qualifications, is •In the expulsion of Dr. Ira Barrow* from the Massachusetts Medical Society, we have always felt that the most gross injustice was done him. A prejudice was first created against him in the Society because he was a houiojopathist. It was decided, however, by the Councillors, that.he could not be expelled on that charge, which was withdrawn, and one of " gross and notorious immorality," the term of the By-law, was subst - tuted. But the whole offence, and that not proved, was that he had tech- nically broken a pecuniary contract with another member of the Society, and one which the Courts would not sustain. By a similar process, it I s now proposed to expel us in a manner that shall leave the brand of "Uril.TY OK DISIIONOKA111.K CONIU'CTj" UpOD U.S. 24 a matter of public interest, and favored and secured by law. In construing the purposes and functious of the Society, you will look- to the charter only, and not to the uncertain will of a majority of members, for the time being. As the courts have decided: "A member looks to the charter; in that he puts his toust, and not in the uncertain will of a majority of the members." We were admitted into the Society upon a decision that we had the requisite capacity, moral character, and scientific knowledge. We have continued in full membership, without objection on any of those points, to the present time, and for periods varying from forty years to fifteen years. There is now no charge made that we have ceased to possess the requisite knowledge and capacity for membership, or '• ignorantly or wickedly administer medicine." The charges and specifications do not affect our moral character, in any proper sense of the term. It is not alleged that we are guilty of any fraudu'ent practice or of any false pretences ; as, for instance, that we bold ourselves out to the public as practising on one theory, and in fact practise upon another. The charges and specifications are consistent with an honest line of conduct, followed upon honest convictions, by men having the requisite intelligence and knowledge for membership of the Society. It is not alleged that homeopathy is a false or dangerous, or even uncertain theory, but only that it is an " exclusive " theoty. It: is not alleged that the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society has any intention or has made any attempt to disorganize or destroy this Society. It is only charged that the Homeopathic Society, from its being homeopathic, is " at variance with and tends to " disorganize this Society'. This is mere circumlocution. It is only saying that the Society is opposed to homeopathy, and therefore the Homeopathic Society must be at variance with it, and tend to disorganize it, and therefore all members of the Home- opathic Society are constructively guilty of an attempt to destroy this Society, although they may not intend it, or be conscious of it, or have done any act in that direction. Our prosecutors rely upon a By-law of the Society which it is said condemns homeopathy. By-Law of 1860. " Hereafter no person shall be admitted a member of this Society, who professes to cure diseases by spirit- ualism, homeopathy or Thompsonianism." In the first place this By-law relates to the admission of new members, and has no reference to the exclusion of members. . The fact that the Society did not extend the disqualification to existing members ought to be treated as a judgment on their part that it was not lawful so to extend it. But let us call your attention to the history of this By-law, It was not adopted at a full meeting of the Society, which consists of about twelve hundred members, of whom some*'four or five hun- dred are usually present at the anniversary meetings, but at an 25 adjourned meeting, at which only nineteen were present, and it was passed in this little room by a vote of eleven to eight. The spirit in which hostile legislation has been carried by a few persons through this Society is well exemplified by the proceedings of May 25th, 1870 (see Medical Communications, 1870, pp. 158, 9). The By-laws required (By-law XXXII) that no alterations shall be made in the By-laws except at the adjournments of anniversary meetings. At the anniversary meeting of 1*70, an adjournment was had for Jive minutes, and that was gravely treated as a com- pliance with the By-law ; and at that adjourned meeting a resolu- tion was carried as the record shows " amid much confusion," that the Society " hereby expels from fellowship . . . homeopaths, hydropaths, eclectics, or what not." The good sense and regard for justice of this Society has treated that resolution as void. ROWER AND EFFECT OF BY-LAWS. But, if the cause for expulsion is not sufficient in law, it cannot be made so bjT putting it in the form of a By-law or resolution. All By-laws must be (1) in harmony not only with statute law, but with the spirit of the common law, (2) in accordance with the pur- poses and nature of the charter of the institution chartered; (3) reasonable in their operation on the rights of members. This point has been uniformly established b}- the courts. If this Society cannot lawfull}- expel a member for practising vaccination, it cannot do so by passing a By-law prohibiting vac- cination, and expelling him for breach of the By-law. If the\- can- not expel a member for any given practice, they cannot do so by declaring the practice dishonorable and tending to disorganize the Society, and expel the member for constructive dishonor, or a constructive attempt against the Society. Discarding all subterfuges, and constructive offences, and circu- ities, we ask you to look this charge directly in the face, and to deal with it honestly. It is simply this: Our accusers say to us, " You have the requisite intelligence, education, and skill to be members of this Society. There is no imputation upon }rour moral character. You are practising openly what }tou believe to be medical science. In that you are encouraged and sanctioned by the Commonwealth in terms as strong as those by which the Med- ical School of Harvard University is sanctioned. We do not charge you with an intention to injure this societ3T, or with having con- sciously attempted to injure it. We do not charge you with any- thing actually dishonorable. You practise homeopathy. We do not believe in homeopathy, and therefore we mean to expel you. In order to do so we are obliged to resort to a little subterfuge and indirect pretence. To give a fair color to our proceeding, and bring it within the terms of the By-laws, we are obliged to call it an attempt to injure the Society, and conduct unworthy an honor able physician. But the only real charge is that you practise 26 homeopathy. The only real question is whether for that you can be expelled from the Society." HOMOEOPATHY SANCTIONED BY LAW. It is established law in Massachusetts that homeopathy is med- icine ; and that a person fit to practise medicine on the theory of homeopathy, is entitled to a degree in medicine, and to practise medicine, and to hold himself out to the community as a practi- tioner in medicine. The Act of 1867, ch. 27, to incorporate the New England Homeopathic Medical College provides, in section 3, as folfows : " The trustees, together with the regularly consti- tuted officers of the New England Homeopathic Medical College, shall have power to confer the degree of doctor in medicine, sub- ject to the restrictions and regulations which are adopted and required in conferring the same degree by Harvard College and the Berkshire Medical Institution." The degree is not of doctor in homeopathic medicine, but of" doctor in medicine." It is to the same effect, and carrying with it the same declaration, with a degree of doctor of medicine given by Harvard College, or the Berkshire Medical College. The legislature of this Commonwealth has encouraged homeopathy by incorporating hospitals and dis- pensaries and medical colleges based upon homeopathy exclusively (Acts 1855, ch. 411 ; 1*56, ch. 191, 251 ; 1867, ch. 27). This Society, from which our accusers hope to expel us, derives its character and all its powers from the same legislature. The legislature has not made it an allopathic or an anti-homeopathic medical societ}'. The legislature has made it a medical society in the broadest terms. And the same legislature has declared that homeopathy is medicine, the practice of homeopathy is the prac- tice of medicine, and that the degrees given by the Homeopathic Medical College are degrees in medicine generally in the same manner as the degrees given by Harvard College. You cannot expel us for practising homeopathy without violating the charter on which the Society rests. You cannot legally, by however large a majority, change it to an allopathic or anti-homeopathic society. The law will not permit you to say that homeopathy is not medi- cine. HOMOEOPATHY RECOGNIZED BY OTHER STATES AND THE NATION. Homeopathy has been recognized as medicine by the highest public authorities in other states and countries. There are incorporated homeopathic medical State societies in the following States : Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa- chusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan. Also, in the following, the State societies are probably incorporated : Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Kansas. Besides these eighteen State societies, there are more than sixty 27 local or county societies in active operation, many of which are incorporated. In New York, at the time when this effort is being made to ostracize us, some of your confreres are endeavoring to unite the two schools in one society. HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES. There exist also the following incorporated homeopathic medical colleges: Pennsylvania, 1; New York, 2 ; Ohio, 2 ; Illinois, 1; Missouri, 1; Michigan, 1; Massachusetts, 1. In addition, the Michigan legislature has passed a law ordering the appointment of two professors of homeopathy in the Michigan University, and the Boston University has just established its Medical Department under homeopathic auspices. INCORPORATED HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITALS. The following homeopathic hospitals have been chartered by State legislatures, and have been established: Massachusetts, 1 ; New York, 7 ; Pennsylvania, 2 ; Ohio, 2 ; Illinois, 3 ; Missouri, 1. Besides these there are upwards of twenty other hospitals or asjdiims under homeopathic care in the United States, in which homeopatl^- is permitted or required by law. INCORPORATED HOMOEOPATHIC DISPENSARIES. There are twenty of these of considerable size, in active opera* tion, and a large number of smaller ones which do not assume a corporate organization. In one of the homeopathic dispensaries in New York city 41,714 patients were treated last 3rear, 7,384 visits were made, and 84,648 prescriptions were given, making it one of the largest, if not the largest, dispensary in the country. THE EXTENT OF THE PRACTICE OF HOMOEOPATHY. The principle of homeopathy was first enunciated by Hahne- mann in 1796. It was twenty-nine 3rears after this, in 1825, before its first advocate in this country, Dr. Gram, came to America. The opposition and ridicule which was exhibited by the profession pre- vented its careful study and examination by them, and in fifteen years, in 1M0, there were scarcely a hundred physicians believing it in the United States In 1848 a medical school was chartered in Philadelphia for the teaching of its principles, and since that time its growth has been rapid until, as }'ou have seen, it has become a power in the land. Already more than five thousand plrvsicians have adopted its principles, and practise in accordance therewith. It has gone into every circle of intelligence and refinement, and is esteemed in proportion to the intimate experience with it. LITERATURE OF HOMOEOPATHY. There are of homeopathic journals, published and well-supported in the United States alone, three quarterlies, seven monthlies, and one bi-monthly. Not less than one thousand volumes have been 28 published relating to homeopathic medicine ; and more have been issued durino- the past year than ever before in the same time. I here present for your examination, as showing the broad scope of them, three volumes but just issued : — The first, a book of 239 pages on Ophidians, is an exhaustive treatise on serpents and their poison; the next a volume of 544 pages, issued in Detroit, Mich., is an elaborate and careful study of 160 new remedies recently proved upon the healthy human system, and introduced into the materia medica; the third is perhaps the handsomest and most complete work on Veterinary Medicine ever issued. It is a large octavo of 658 pages, and carefully describes every form of disease found in domestic animals. Thus showing thaUiomeopathy is not alone applicable to creatures with imagi- nation, but has won other triumphs. ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING HOMfEOPATHISTS. I might call to your mind the dismissal by our national govern- ment of Dr. Van Aernam, commissioner of pensions, for the sole reason that he removed subordinates on account of homeopathic belief; also the subsequent reinstatement by the government of the men removed by him. So, also, within the }rear past our State gov- ernment has had under commission as militia surgeon and assistant surgeons, three men who were known to be homeopathists. The time, therefore, is past, when you may think to ostracize men for adopting the homeopathic belief and practice in medicine. CONDITION OF HOMCEOPATHY IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. In Europe, where, thirty years ago, we were told that it was dying out, homeopathy was never so extensively practised as now. More than thirty hospitals and asylums have adopted this practice. There are upwards of two hundred practitioners of it in Paris alone. It is taught in several universities by a distinct chair. In Saxony, for several years, every pharmacy has been compelled to maintain a separate homeopathic department. In the German army are many homeopathists. Among them the philosophic Grauvogl, noted for his work on the science of Homeopathy, occupies a high position. In every court in Europe homeopathy has been introduced, and is used by a fair proportion of the nobil- ity and gentry, as well as by men of letters, and families of the largest influence and intelligence. In Brazil, and some portions of South America, it has already become the prevailing or " orthodox " practice. It has been favor- ably introduced among the nations of China and Hindostan, and a handsome monthly is issued in Calcutta. In Australia, a homeo- pathic hospital has been established, and in New Zealand a ho- meopathic medical journal is published. But here, in New England, in Boston, in the year 1873, an attempt is made to brand as " guilty of conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician," fellow-members of your Society, of admitted intelligence and character, because they practise medi- cine in that way ! WHAT IS HOMOEOPATHY? We have been treated, here and elsewhere, to certain opinions quoted from Hahnemann's Organon, to show what homeopathy is. These would be in evidence, if it were proved that they were the opinions of the persons accused, or that the Organon was to ho- meopathists a book of which they acknowledged the plenar}' inspi- ration, and whose every word was of binding force upon them. But that is not pretended ; and, if it were, the pretence could be easily disproved. That the Organon is a book which contains many truths, and statements worthy of careful consideration b37 every plrj'sician. we cheerfully acknowledge; but, at the same time, no men, or class of men, are compelled to subscribe to its opinions or to accept its errors. Dr. Hering, the distinguished homeopathist of Philadelphia, makes use of the following language respecting Hahnemann's theories, in his prefatory remarks to the American edition of the Organon: "• For myself, I am generally considered a disciple of Hahnemann, and I do indeed declare that I am one among the most enthusiastic in doing homage to his greatness; but nevertheless, I declare also, that since my first acquaintance with homeopathy (in the year 1*21), down to the present day, I have never yet accepted a single theory in the Organon as there promulgated. . . . Who- ever, therefore will assail the theories of Hahnemann, or even altogether reject them, is at perfect liberty to do so; but let him not imagine that he has thereby accomplished a memorable achieve- ment. In every respect it is an affair of little importance." If everything written by the so-called '■ wise men " on medicine were to be taken as evidence of present views, we could delve into the past medical writings and show you opinions and practices which would make your cheeks tingle with shame, that such things could be. We would not have to go back far to the time when physicians relied for cure on such compounds as the all-powerful Theriaca of Andro- machus, with its sixt3'-one ingredients, the most essential of which was the dried flesh of vipers; or when the Mithridate, of ro3'al renown and equal complexity, held omnipotent swaj' over disease ; or still later, when, according to the dispensatories of the day, there were mixed, or jumbled together, in a single dose as many as three hundred and eighty-eight different drugs and crude substances, from many of which regard for decency will not allow the conceal- ment of a dead language to be removed. The past condition of the medical profession has been well stated by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, in his address before this Society in 1*60, on the Currents and Counter-currents in Medical 30 Science, showed the abuses it has clung to, and the absurdities it has fostered, and, considering the injury it has done in the past, and the little good it accomplishes in the present, he said, " Throw out opium . . . throw out a few specifics, which our art did not discover, . . . throw out wine, which is a food, and the vapors which produce the miracle of anaesthesia, and I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica as now used [the italics are his] could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, — and all the worse for the fishes." Dr. James Rush, of Philadelphia, a distinguished physician, says : " Upon these points, and bearing in mind that we have now in medicine the recorded practice of more than two thousand years, let the reader refer to the proceedings of the medical profession during the prevalence of the so-called 'Asiatic cholera,' and he will find their history everywhere exhibiting an extraordinary pic- ture of prefatory panic, vulgar wonder, doubt, ignorance, obtrusive vanity, plans for profit and popularity, fatal blunders, distracting contradictions, and egregious empiricisms." When we consider the fiercely conflicting sects which in the his- tory of medicine are recalled by the names of Dogmatist; Theorist, or Rationalist; Empiric, or Experimentalist; Eclectic, Gymnast, Atomist, Methodist, Pneumatist, Chemist, or Mineralist; Botanist, Anatomist, Derivatist, Casual Indicist, or Iatro-mathematist,—when we recall how humoral pathology gave way to solidism, and that in turn to vitalism, and both yielded to animism, — how the rational- ism of Hoffman and the eclecticism of Boerhaave were displaced by the dynamic theory of Cullen, and that by the sthenic and asthenic theories of Brown, —we may say with Girtanner, "As medical science has no firm principles, as nothing in it is fixed or settled, as there is but little certain authentic experience, it follows that every physician has the right to follow his own opinion." And in this state of medical matters, when we are told even by this pros- ecuting committee, that this society has no system binding on its members, are we forbidden to believe what we think is true, or to practise what we believe? We have been told what homeopathy is by the prosecuting com- mittee ; and by the definition it was evident that they were very ignorant concerning it. I must claim the privilege of correcting their vague definition, and of stating in a few words what homeopathy is ; and I be«in bv tellirg what it is not. ° J 1st. Homeopathy is not infinitesimal doses. 2d. Homeopathy is not the doctrine of psora, nor any other theory, in regard to the nature and origin of disease Homeopathy is, or is based upon, a general principle in medicine, that all drugs possess the power of removing from the human sys- tem symptoms similar to those which they are capable of producing in it; and this principle, as expressed by the Latin aphorism ox Siinilid simi'ibus cnrantur, is by some considered a great law of nature for the control of disease. What are its boundaries, or where are it s limits, remains yet to be determined. From this, then, follows naturally, 1st. That to obtain knowledge of the effects of drugs upon the human system, experiments must be made with them in health. 2d. That to obtain the exact effect of a drug, it must be ad- ministered pure and unmixed. From these has resulted, by experiment, the following discovery : 3d. That small doses of a drug will remove symptoms similar to those which the same drug will produce. It has been sometimes said that the infinitesimal size of the homeopathic dose carried with it so much of absurdity that any one believing in it must be either a fool or a knave. Pause ere you act upon such an assertion, or suffer your minds to be prejudiced thereby. The size of the dose has nothing what- ever to do with the principles of homeopathy. The proper dose is to be found only by experiment; and every homeopathist, and every member of the Homeopathic Medical Society has a perfect liberty and right to make these experiments, and use doses of any size which he chooses. But so many times have these experiments been repeated, that it has come to be an accepted fact that they cure best in such quantities as shall not produce any toxic or poisonous effects, or aggravation of the symptoms already existing. If the millionth part of a grain will cure better than a hundred grains, is not the physician bound to use the smaller dose? But before you decide upon the utter inertness of the minutest quantity, let me remind you of the recent experiments and dem- onstrations of M. Davaine, before the French Academy, on the subject of Septica'inia. From these experiments, which have since been verified, it is seen that the ten trillionth part of a drop actually destroyed life when injected into the veins of a Guinca- l>'n- Now, a tank to hold ten trillion drops must have, according to Simpson, an area of 2,500 square miles and a uniform depth of 800 feet. It might hold the waters of ten such lakes as Champ- lain ; and one drop would be raised by it to the sixth centesimal dilution. With this testimony, who can longer dispute the power of infinitesimals? And the demonstration of its power to kill, if it does not show its curative power, at least relieves from, the opprobrium of inertness. Homeopathy is founded on a certain fixed principle or law. The precipe explanation of the manner in which its remedies act, whether by the so-called Substitutive Method of Trousseau or that of Electric Allinity is unimportant, aud all theories in regard to the origin and nature of disease are foreign to it, and belong only to individual opinion. 32 In accordance with this law, medicines must be given for pre- cisely such symptoms as they are capable of producing. 1'hus, in disease of the head, a medicine is required which affects the head, not the stomach; if the stomach is disordered, one acting on that or^an rather than on the skin. And the medicine must act, not in a ceneral manner upon the organ, but upon that particular portion oHt which is diseased. It is useless to administer a medicine which affects onlv the mucous membrane of the stomach, when either the muscular coat, or the nervous filaments of that organ are the scat of disease. It must also have the power of producing an effect upon the organ similar to the disease. Syncope may be occasioned alike by anemia or hyperemia ; but, if by the former, it would be wholly useless to administer a medicine which produces plethora. Temperament, age, sex, disposition, temperature, and many other conditions, require to be taken into account by the physician ; but they do not in the least change the character of the law. So far we have a theory merely, but fortunately one that can easily be put to the test, bet me ask these my associates " on trial." let me ask the five thousand homeopathic practitioners in the United States if they have not frequently seen a decided and marked curative effect from a minute dose of Aconite in fever, Ipe- cacuanha in vomiting. Mercury in diarrhea, Coffee in sleeplessness, Belladonna and Glonoine in headache, Hepar sulphuris in croup, Arnica in injuries, and (. hamomilla in many diseases of infancy. I know well that their answer will be, ''Most assuredly we have;" and proof of this character might be obtained in thousands upon thousands of cases. Even the most bitter opponents of homeopa- thy are finding this out slowly, and, like Sidney Ringer, are giving medicine homeopathically — but "on physiological principles!" This principle in medicine has been hinted at from the time of Hippocrates by most thoughtful writers, but it remained for Hahnemann to seize upon the idea, and, by the devotion of forty years of his long life in studying the poisonous effects of drugs upon his own system, to develop a new materia medica, which has so far proved a permanent one. If, during this long life, which reached to almost ninety, Hahnemann, in his enthusiasm, said anything untrue or unwise, are we, who accept the truths he developed, to be held responsible therefor? It was to examine these statements and to develop these truths, which are of a strictly scientific and in no sense "of a partisan char- acter, that this Homeopathic Society was formed in 1840. not " at variance with" nor " tending to disorganize the Massachusetts Medi cal Society," but as a principal in and supplementary to the So ciety. in accomplishing a work which the Society, properly cover- ing the whole domain of medicine, has. to the present time, contin- ued to neglect, " and this special society has faithfully done its 33 work. It has investigated this branch of the healing art, ha3 made provings of hitherto unknown drugs, — and, since its formation, that little band of only five persons in Xew England, has increased more than a hundred fold. But we, as members of that Society, are bound by no pledge, either direct or implied, that we will practise medicine onty in accordance with a certain exclusive theor}' or dogma. Our only professional pledge is to cure our patients by the best means in our power; and whenever j'ou can show us anything better than homeopathy., be assured that we shall not hesitate to accept it. For this purpose, we claim to stand, as physicians, ready to receive any new truths ; and we ask you to be as ready to examine what we have so carefully studied and believe to be true. So far as I know it has never yet been claimed for homeopathy that it had reached perfection. All that it attempts in medical science is the application of drugs to the cure of disease. It is limited to the vital or dynamic sphere. In the purely mechanical or surgical appliances, in dietetics, in h3'giene, in much that goes to make up the practice of the physician, homeopathy is not applicable, and every physician must here use his best judgment. So too with an- aesthesia, and chemical antidotes in poisoning. Still further than this I go, — and I think every member of the Homeopathic Society will agree with me, — ichen it is clearly proved that any drug or remedy in mny case or form whatever, is the best thing for a patient, it is the physician's duty to his patient and to his profession to ad- minister such remedy, but until such a demonstration is given, it is equally his duty to give what he thinks is best, be it homeopathi ', allopathic, or heteropathic. The community are sufferers by all the quarrels, piques and, jeal- ousies among physicians, and often to the extent of loss of life. Such discords are softened and removed by free social intercourse with men of differing views. And this humanizing influence is one of the great aims of the Massachusetts Medical Society, where- by the benefit of the whole people of the State is sought. Now. if bigotry erect barriers between educated, honorable men, that action is, in itself, " at variance with, and tends to disorganize, the Mas- sachusetts Medical Society," and even now, as all confess, threat- ens its very existence. And who, then, are the offenders? If you proceed to expel the accused, or to recommend their ex- pulsion, you will not only be acting in violation of law, but, as we believe, offend the sympathy and good judgment of the community, against the advice of the most honored members of this Society. In 1850, a committee, composed of Doctors George Hay ward, J. B. S. Jackson, and O. W. Holmes, made a report from which it would seem that at that time a member could not even resign his membership by reason of holding to the principles of homeopathy. That committee recommended that homeopathists be permitted to resign. Referring to the general abandonment of all theories there- 3 34 tofore adopted by allopathic physicians, as humoral pathology or solidism and the successive theories or schools of Boerhaave, (Jul- len Hoffman, Brown, Rust, and Broussais ; and the wide openings of science in all directions, the report commends the Society to do no more than to avoid giving positive sanction to homeopathy. In 1854, a committee was-appointed on a resolution offered by a Dr Spofford, recommending the expulsion of homeopathists. That'committee reported through Dr. Jacob Bigelow, and the report was adopted by the Councillors, and is to-day of binding force upon the Society. (See Modern Inquiries, by Jacob Bigelow, M.D., p. 326 ) It begins with the following striking paragraph: " The Massachusetts Medical Society was incorporated mainly for the purpose of establishing a proper standard of medical edu- cation, and of ensuring a competent degree of knowledge among those who should be authorized to practise the profession of medi- cine in this Commonwealth ; and we are not aware that the Society possesses any power to coerce men, after they have been thus edu- cated and qualified, to embrace or renounce any theoretical opin- ions or modes of practice which they may innocently believe." This declaration, from so high a source, may well lead this Board to reflect deeply before lending themselves to this prosecu- tion. The whole report we earnestly commend to their consideration. Among other things it charges the system opposite to homeopa- thy usually called the " heroic," as alike productive of evil to the patients. It recommends the Society to trust to the lessons of time rather than to weapons of warfare. We also refer you to the address of Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., in the Medical Communications of 1871, p. 181, especially pp. 234-6, warning this Society against being led to unwise courses by the American Medical Association We next call your attention to a report or " representation" to the American Medical Association, by a committee of the Council- lors of fhe Massachusetts Medical Society (see Medical Coniuiu- nications for 1871, vol XI., No. 5, Proceedings of the Councillors, pp. 203-9). This, I understand, was unanimously adopted It admits that the Society has no power to adopt by-laws, except such as are reasonable, and that the courts of law, and not the Society, are to judge of the reasonableness. It takes the ground that members, having passed the examination and established their legal light as Fellows of the Society, do not render themselves liable to expulsion by afterwards engaging " in the practice of medicine according to some exclusive dogma, such as homeopathy." Although they denounce homeopathy in terms that show them very hostile to it, they seem fully aware of the danger of violating their charter and being rebuked by the courts of law, if they attempt to expel homeopathists as such. To their honorable minds the device did not suggest itself, to which our accusers have resorted, of declaring homeopathy dishonorable and then trying 35 us, not for homeopathy, but for dishonor. They also condemn the resolution of this society above referred to, adopted May 25,1*70, undertaking to expel homeopathists. They say, u This resolution was passed near the close of meeting, amid much noise and con- fusion, and is, of course, of no legal binding force." This whole report is in many respects one of the most careful and thorough ever made to the Society, and I must recommend its considerate perusal not only to you but to every member of the Society on whom, as it was unanimously adopted by the Councdlors acting for the whole Society, its statements are of binding force. It will ever be a strange chapter in this Society's history that a bod3r which could adopt such a report, thereby giving it binding force, should, almost in the same breath, commence or even allow these proceedings in violation of it. THE EVIDENCE. But while I am surprised that these charges have under such circumstances been made, I am still more surprised at the entire absence of any attempt on the part of the prosecutors to sustain them l>3r any evidence. There has not been presented an iota of proof which could be admitted in any court of law. The state- ment of a prosecuting officer is not evidence. The belief that the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society is at variance with and tends to disorganize this Society, does not make it true. If we go back to the disgraceful scene in the beginning of this trial,— Xovember 21, 1871,— when the chairman of these prosecu- tors, in a bombastic and offensive manner, gave us his opinion of homeopathy — which we all knew to be false — and mixed this with low and vulgar jest and insult, we cannot-for a moment sup- pose that this Board will look upon that as evidence. And in the present stage of the trial, when the only remaining one of the five prosecutors presents similar opinions, though in a manner most courteous and unobjectionable, and clothed in words prepared by one of the most acute legal minds of this Common- wealth, 3'ou cannot accept this as evidence. Nor can you take the words written l>3' Hahnemann a half century ago and apply them to us, and assume them to be our opinions at the present time. Neither can 3'ou, on the prosecutors' statement, and without proof, decide that the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Societ}- is antagonistic to, and tends to disorganize and destroy, the Massa- chusetts Medical Society, and that membership of both is incom- patible. On the other hand, there has been evidence presented, that there has never been any attempt on the part of the persons accused to disorganize or destroy this Society. That though members of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, yet that Soeiety has never sought by any act, either directly or indirectly, to injure, dis- organize, or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society; that the 36 accused had alwavs been faithful and efficient members of this Massachusetts Medical Society, and were in no way guilty of the charges and specifications as made, and were entitled by the char- ter and by-laws of the Society to a full and complete acquittal. Examine in detail the evidence introduced by the accused, and vou will see— ,,.,-,, i i ' 1. That the Homeopathic Society is established by law, and that membership of it cannot be treated as an offence, much less a crime for which expulsion from a legal society becomes the penalty. 2. That homeopathy has again and again been pronounced a legitimate system of medicine in this State by the people in Gen- eral Court assembled. 3. That the accused have always been good and faithful mem- bers of the Massachusetts Medical Society, as shown by the evi- dence of the officers of this Society. The testimony of the accused, and it could have been confirmed by a hundred additional witnesses, but that your Board ruled that cumulative evidence on this point was not necessary, has fully proved that all these charges and specifications are untrue. 4. That the accused have never, individually or collectively, attempted to disorganize or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society. 5. That the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society has never in an}- manner, or by any act, attempted to disorganize or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society. 6. That ihe accused are not now, and never have been, pledged to practise medicine in accordance with any " exclusive theory or dogma " ; but that they seek only the best method of curing their patients 7. That the accused have been, severally, good and faithful members of the Massachusetts Medical Society for terms varying from sixteen to fort3'-eight 3rears, and have in that time regularly contributed to the maintenance of the Society, and to its funds an I property. With the entire absence of evidence against the accused, and with the mass of positive proof that they have never sought to disorganize or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society, only by the greatest perversion of your powers as a Board of Trial, could you pronounce them GUILTY. Gently men : While I was meditating how to frame the defence of my friend against these charges, the first thing that struck me was the singular character of the trial. Indeed as I look back at what has taken place here, I am amazed at the unfairness, might I not characterize it still more severely, of the whole proceedings. We may fairly claim that such a trial, if this proceeding deserve the name, is as unprecedented as it is unjustifiable. 37 WHO ARE THE MEN ON TRIAL? Look at the character and standing of the accused, and the methods adopted by this singular tribunal. Dr. William Bushnell, a man of singular purity of character and life, who after faithful study under approved teachers has conscien- tiously performed the duties of his profession, and whom the breath of slander has never touched ; Dr. Milton Fuller, a favorite student with the elder Dr. Town- send, a painstaking pupil in a school of acknowledged ability, who has for more than forty years devoted him-elf to his profession with universal acceptance, and finds himself now, for the first time in his life, charged with conduct unbecoming a gentleman and a physician; Dr. II. L. II. Hoffendahl, who graduated from Harvard Univer- sity with the leading honors of his class, and who has brought the severe training and broad culture of the University into the service of the profession, and whose reputation is such as may well be envied ; Dr. Samuel Gregg, who for nearly half a century, day and night, devoted himself to the welfare of his patients, among whom were some of our foremost men in professional and mercantile life, glad to trust to his intuitive skill and educated sagacity their own lives and those of their families, but who in early professional life was compelled to join this Society, in order to have the benefit of con- sulting with its members, and at a time when he was so poor that even the ten dollars required for membership was a serious tax on his scanty resources. Here in his old age, after having done all that the Society could even ask of a member, after having honored the Society, as few men are privileged to do, by a life of rare use- fulness and deserved success, after having believed and practised in accordance with the homeopathic principles for more than thirty years, he was to be expelled and dishonored on the accusation of men belonging to a generation which was in its cradle when he was watching at the bedside of some of our noblest citizens, their trusted counsellor, to whose skill and care they acknowledged that they owed health and life ; Dr. George Russell, now nearly fourscore years of age. the good physician of three successive generations, whose professional success testifies for him, aud whose uprightness, honesty, and integ- rity are unimpeachable; Dr. David Thayer, whose professional skill has not only been rewarded with a large practice and the well-earned confidence of a wide and influential circle, but whose admitted ability and integ- rity have advanced him to many places of public trust; Dr. Benj. H. West, whose character as a scholar, as a physician, and as a public man, needs no eulogy here. 38 These are the men whom you seek to brand as guilty of a crime worthy of expulsion, from whom 3-011 would take rights given them by the State ; whom yon would deprive of property which they themselves have helped to contribute to the Society and to science. THE MANNER OF THE TRIAL. In a matter of so great importance you will allow me briefly to review the manner of conducting the trial of such physicians as these. Without ever having, by word or deed, sought the injury of the Society, never having introduced into it any disturbing ques- tion, these men are summoned before a so-called Board of Trial, and charged with guilt. This Board becomes at once juror, judge, and executioner. In the first part of the trial they are in constant communication and consultation with the prosecuting committee : charges too vague to base any proceedings upon, or even to admit of an answer, are brought before them; and the proceedings are only arrested by an injunction from the Supreme Court. The Court refuses to express its opinion. Again the trial begins with old charges amended, new charges introduced in such a manner that the Board itself is unable to tell us whether the trial is before the old Board on the old charges, the old Board on the charges amend- ed, the old Board on the new charges, or before a new Board on the old charges, a new Board on the old charges amended, 01 anew Board on the new charges, or the old and the new Boards amalga- mated on each or all of these. If there was any pertinency in the stale, rude sto:y, told by the chairman of your prosecuting com- mittee, of the Little Joker, first here, then there, and then nowhere, it surely applies best and closest to this trial and these charges. Although clothed with full powers to grant our reasonable re- quests, this Board refuses to allow the friends of the accused, not members of the Society, to be present; refuses to allow the press to report its proceedings ; refuses to allow a sworn reporter, selec- ted by both parties, to make a verbatim report of the proceedings; refuses to allow the persons accused to employ a reporter to do so; refuses to allow a clerk or amanuensis to sit beside them and take notes ; though it employs, as clerk and recorder of all its doings, for its own private use, the secretary of the Society, who sits with them in secret session ; refuses to allow legal counsel in a matter affecting property and character; refuses to allow counsel to be present even to advise; refuses to allow any challenge of said jurors and members of the board of trial, even if known°to be per- sons prejudiced and determined to convict. And yet, this is called a Trial! Call it rather a Star-Chamber Council, inspired by envy and malice, determined, in some way or other, to punish their fellows, and well aware that the end could not be reached by any means which fair play and the law allow ; by any means which would bear 39 the light; which the public would not condemn, if the public could see all that is done. I am well aware that what has been said here will have little effect upon the ultimate result: but bear in mind that the spirit which incited this trial and the manner in which it has been con- ducted, the secrets which have not been kept within these closed and doubly-guarded doors, will be written in characters more en- during than your lives, will be spread before an audience a thou- sand fold larger than could come within this hall. And while 3'ou may fancy that we are the men on trial, you will find that it is yourselves who are passing through an ordeal, of which the verdict will be rendered by those for whose benefit our profession is estab- lished. Do not think that the disgrace of such proceedings will rest on our honored Mother, the Massachusetts Medical Society. No, gentlemen, we shall always refuse to believe that your proceedings thus far have been sustained by the honest judgment of that Society, which was founded by honorable men, inspired by a liberal and catholic spirit. I lowever you may decide this question, we have lit- tle to fear. All hist or}' shows that truth is helped by narrow and malignant attacks upon her. She gains more from the malice of her enemies than even from the ability of her friends. Harvey was ridiculed ; Jenner was denounced by the profession which now cherishes his nain^ as its proudest title to the gratitude and confi- dence of the community. Already we have proof that coming generations will have reason to be thankful for the unsuccessful assault upon us last year. The cordial sympathy and world-wide notice it got for us, poured into our hands the means to found and most liberally endow a Homeopathic Hospital to relieve the suffer- ings of future generations. Go on then, gentlemen, render such verdict as you may think proper. But the result of this trial will be to give us still larger and kinder support. A second wave of public sympathy will found a University for the study of our system, and to prepare for us successors, still better fitted than we are to serve that large and growing portion of a community which accepts no dictation as to what system it shall favor; which has made up its mind, after trying the allopathic method for centuries, that homeopatiiy better suits the human system — that it is amply able to treat any dis- ease, and is in all cases efficient and trustworthy. If you, gentlemen, can afford to contribute thus lavishly to our success, we surelv'should not quarrel with the prominence and pop- ularity you give us. 40 DR. WEST'S DEFENCE. The Massachusetts Medical Society has rights, to be respected b3r all its members. A principal right is that of making by-laws for the promotion of its objects. In the enactment of by-laws, it is not absolute, but must conform to the fundamental principles of justice, and the basis on which the legislature, which gave it a charter, itself rests It cannot violate any principle of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the State. It cannot, contrary to, or in disregard of these, deprive a Fellow of the Society of any of his rights to character or property. The 24th Section of the Bill of Rights is as follows : — '■ Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not"been declared crimes by preceding laws, are uujust, oppressive, aud inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government." " Seci. 12. No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally described to him, or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favor- able to him, to meet the witnesses against him, face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself or his counsel, at his election; aud no subject xhallbe arrested, imprisoned, despoiled or deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the laud. And the legislature shall not make any law, that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, except for the government of the unny and navy, without trial by jury." Of the Constitution of the United States, the first Article in the third clause of Section 9, reads: " No bill of attainder or ex post J'ac'o law shall be passed." Of the Amendments, this is Article I: — " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble aud to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Article 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- wise nifamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a "rand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any per- son be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use with- out just compensation." yuum, use vviiu The resolution passed by this Society June 7, 1*71, which is made the basis of complaint or accusation, seems to me an ex no*t facto law, because it refers to acts done before the existence of the 41 law, it having been made on purpose to strike those who had for a long time previously done similar acts, perfectly and clearly within their power, and not contrary to the laws of the Society. This resolution also aims at depriving a Fellow of his property, immunities and privileges, without a proper trial, b3' providing that the Board of Trial shall adjudicate the case, substantially making the Board judge, jury, and executioner. The resolution of the Society set out to strike a blow at the char- acter and fame of a Fellow, and, in so far as it can, disgrace, and render him infamous, by depriving him of his position as a regular, and hence publicly authorized, physician, without trial by jury. The resolution attempts to interfere with the freedom of speech, by threatening the reputation of any Fellow who shall declare his confidence in a mode of managing disease, which has already com- mended itself to the confidence of a very considerable part of the best minds in the State, and which constantly asks for the careful consideration of all men, especially those devoted to therapeutics. The law disputes the right of private judgment, and practically denies that freedom of thought inseparable from, but indispensable to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To the assertion and maintenance of this freedom of thought and judgment, the entire history of the Anglo-Saxon race, since the da}s of tbe Magna Charta, tends ; nor is this race alone in this ten- dency. With us, there is no national or established church or religion. Although theology ma3r assume to hold some doctrines as cer- tain,— as, for example, the existence of a God, the consciousness of the soul, the belief in a future existence, — 3-et no man is held responsible for scepticism. In government or political science a similar condition obtains. The feudal system has perished. The vassal no longer serves his lord. The king, himself, finds it hard to write, with its original force, Dei Gratia Hex. Alexander no longer rules over serfs. The troops of the United States return slaves to Southern masters no more. Freedom of body implies and necessitates freedom of mind. This freedom is guaranteed by the writ of habeas corpu* and other legal appliances, especially the constitutional provision securing freedom of speech and the liberty of the press : the opportunity of printing and uttering conclusions obtained through freedom of thought. This freedom is indispensable for the securUy of the individual, in investigating new or reviewing old ideas. The Constitution secures every individual in his rights of prop- erty. Is not his mind more than gold? It secures him the right to vote. Is not the vote an expression of opinion; must he not be at liberty to form his opinion? May he not change his opinion? Every man has this right. He is obliged to exercise it. The child believes the sky very near him, and the earth a plane; — the 42 child - a narrow policy, it discourage or repress investigation, or denounce and attempt to dishonor its Fellows for honest and inevitable differences of opinion, it will fail of its object, outrage confiding humanity, and be guilty of trea- son to the State; nay more, it will, by assuming that nothing new of truth can be presented for its consideration, declare itself the sole custodian of all knowledge, and usurp the place of Divine Wisdom itself. I am also accused of " conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of this Societ3r," in " belonging to a society whose purpose is at vaiiance with the principles of, and tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society." This accusation lies against me as a member of the Massachu- setts Homeopathic Medical Societ3r. If I am asked whether I am a member of that Society, I shall very cheerfulby respond in the affirmative. But if I am accused of 4 50 belonging to a society with a purpose at variance with that of the Massachusetts Medical Society, I must answer in the negative. How are " purpose" and " principles" to be contrasted? What did Massachusetts intend to accomplish, when it char- tered the Massachusetts Medical Society? The preamble of the charter reads thus : — " As health is essentially necessary to the happiness of society, and as its preservation or recovery is closely connected with the knowledge of the animal economy and of the properties and effects of medicines; and as the benefits of medical institutions, founded on liberal principles and encouraged by the patronage of the law, is universally acknowledged,— The Fellows aud their successors shall be and continue forever a body politic and corporate, by the name of the Massachusetts Medical So- ciety." The consideration of this preamble and of the charter, leads me to believe that the State intended to create an instrument, that should efficiently aid in the preservation or recovery of the public health, that the industrial and military resources should be kept at their maximum, in this respect, and the greatest comfort of the individual citizen be secured. The Society commencing its existence ninety years ago, has doubtless striven to fulfil this purpose. A few years ago Massachusetts gave a charter to another Soci- ety, made up at the time largely of Fellows of the Massachusetts Medical Society, under the name of the Massachusetts Homeo- pathic Medical Society. The purpose of the new organization is, like that of the old one, the preservation or recovery of the public health. Each Society is endowed with similar powers, and, as far as I know, similar privileges. At the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Med- ical Society, April 13, 18G4, the President, Daniel Holt, M.D , of Lowell, in his address to the Society, said :__ "The object of our Society is one of the highest importance. It is not to favor any party interests or exclusive doctrines, which are to be en- grafted upon our profession; but its aim is xhe promotion of medical sc? ence in its highest degree of perfection. It is our object mo™ especially to app y to the healing art a creed of nature, whereby the relation between the pathological condition and the therapeutic means of cure are broXt into exact relationship; and by this simple and direct means to Jmw a cure, in a speedy, mild, and efficient manner." ' t0 effect a The Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society believes that it has a vital principle as its base. It has good reasons lor its faith It sees triumphs over disease, the most brilliant, achieved con- stantly under the guidance of this principle, and a revSutionhithe medica history of the country, productive only of good to which this principle is contributing its full quota. What pr nSpkor purpose of the old Society is here interfered with, or in any way 51 thwarted ? What are the principles of the Massachusetts Medical Society, distinctive and peculiar? Ethics are about the same among all right-minded men. If there be a difference between these Societies, it must be on intellectual grounds. The difference lies in the department of therapeutics, and involves no necessity of hostility between the parties. The Fellows of the Massachusetts Medical Society are certainly entitled to claim the faith of the public, in the assertion of the Society concerning them,—that they are " artis medendi peritis- Himi." By their connection with the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, they signify to each other and the world their confidence in an additional department of knowledge. They make no war. They simply ask for investigation. They do not seek the destruction of the Massachusetts Medical Society. They had an undisputed, an indisputable right, moral and legal, to associate themselves together for the purpose of the charter, and have a chartered right to invite men of similar views to join their organization. Such a course is in keeping with the policy of the State, — to foster all knowledge likely to be of public value. The Society will, with reason, expect the protection and support of the power that authorized it. Each of these Societies owes it to the State, to promote the en- lightenment and consequent usefulness of its members. Neither can extinguish the other. As to the disorganization of the old society by the new one, I can only say, that I do not remember hearing such a sentiment advanced since the formation of the lat- ter, and I believe that the hearty desire of the Fellows of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society is for the removal of the indisposition to examine their position, and the mistaken an- tagonism of their associates in the Massachusetts Medical Societ)r. But, it is practically said, if there be no actually hostile effort, there is such dissimilarity, such incompatibility, as to make a gen- uine peace impossible, and hence it is the duty of the homeopa- thists to withdraw from the other Society. The Massachusetts Medical Society, in attacking its accused members, is merely repeating the experiment of King Canute in forbidding the advance of the tide. It may succeed in removing their names from the catalogue, but will it have abolished the cause of difference? What is this cause ? A law of nature. We assert that the in- compatibility, if such it may be termed, grows out of the f.ict that one man sees what another does not. But we deny that there is any consequent necessity for us to resign. What is it to resign? Such heretofore — and until a late period — has been the legislation of the State and of the Massachusetts Medical Society, as to cause any physician residuig in the State 52 without a membership in the Society, to be considered an " irreg- ular practitioner," and excluded, by enaclments of the Society, from an equality with its members Dupuytren, Lisfranc, Roux, Armstrong, .sir Astle3' Cooper, — all, had they been here, would, not many years ago, have been considered, so far as a consultaiion with a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society is concerned, irregular practitioners, and hence not worthy of meeting the Fel- lows of the Society in this important part ot our dut3r. I see that now there is a circuitous route by which a Fellow can travel half- way or more around this enactment. This position of irregular practitioner — the rightful standing of an ignorant pretender — cannot be considered an agreeable one by any educated plrysician. However consonant it may be with the view of the Society, it is clearly discordant wilh the later policy of the State. This degraded position I am invited to assume. Why? Is it because that, in accordance with duty to myself and the public, I investigated homeopathy? Is it because I gave facts their due weight and considerati .11, and, by an inexorable louic, was driven to an unavoidable conclusion? Is it because that, having learned better processes of treatment, I gave my patients the benelit of that knowledge, and thus contributed my mite to the public good? Or, should I resign because my associates have not, thus far" as a body, arrived at the same conclusions? In the introduction of new ideas in any department of life, do all men at the same instant accept the novelty? How long has it taken Christianity to gain not more than half the world, even nominally? What amount of training, for what length of time, was necessary to teach this people to " undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free"? And is he who accepts a truth clearly shown to him, to forget that a mass of minds will of neces- sity require time, ere they occupy his position? Opportunities for observation, the overcoming of prejudice and "pride of opinion, the reconciliation of old and new views on the one hand — the conflict of interests, and the possible loss or alienation of friends on the other, — these and numberless other influences, are to be taken into account. The man who dares believe when he hears the announce-' ment, is of course earlier in the faith than he can be who has not yet heard it; and the pioneer must be content to wait until he shall be joined by converts. But in matters like medicine, where doubt underlies the entire system, and the truth accepted by him 13 itself challenged he need be in no haste to separate from asso- ciates and friends of acknowledged mental and moral excellence. He has no call, as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Soci- ety to assume the position of "irregular practitioner," neither ought he (alter learning his profession twice, as does every allopathic physician who learns homeopathy) to be required so to do. Such a course is calculated to provoke a warfare, bodin- no 53 good to the Massachusetts Medical Society, how much injury soever it may momentarily inflict on the assailed. The world is full of the consequences of such lack of wisdom. In conclusion, permit me to say, that this Board of Trial, the possii.lc appellate Councillors', court, the Massachusetts Medical So< icty itself, is not the authority that will really decide fie ques- tions at isHie. A higher power will say whether it will approve or condemn progress in medical science, whether it will encourage or repress investigation looking to that end, whether it will uphold freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and what it may deem the proper position of those who fear not what man can do. but fear God alone ; this power is the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ; their "enlightened and deliberate verdict I can patiently await. 54 Dn. THAYER'S DEFENCE. Dr. Thayer spoke especially in behalf of himself and Dr. Milton Fuller. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemkx of the Board of Trial :— In addressing ni3'self to the defence which I find myself here to make, against certain charges brought by a Committee of the Mas- sachusetts Medical Society, it seems proper that I should first re- hearse those charges in your hearing. They are as follows, viz :— Northampton, Mass., Nov. 4, 1871. To Pavto Thayer, M. D.: Sin — Charges having been preferred against you by a committee of the Massachusetts Medical'"Society of " Conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of this Society," to wit: "by practis- ing or professing to practise according to an exclusive theory or dogma, and by belonging to a Society whose purpose is at variance with the prin- ciples of, and tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society,"— You are hereby directed to appear before a Board of Trial at the Soci- ety's Rooms, No. 3G Temple place, Perkins Building, on Tuesday, Novem- ber 21, 1871, at 11 o'clock, a. m., to answer to the same, in accordance with by-laws and instructions of the Society. SAMUEL A. FISK, President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. I pass by the insult implied in the phrase "professing to practise" It is of a piece with many other things in this trial. It requires no notice, and is wholly unworthy of gentlemen representing our venerable Society and members of an honorable profession. The substance of the charge is that in practising on the homeopathic system and in joining the Homeopathic Society I have been guilty of conduct inconsistent with my duty as a member of the Massa- chusetts Medical Society. What is the nature and object of that Society? Its charter pro- vides in its preamble that those physicians who are educated and qualified to practise physic may be distinguished from those who ignorantly and wickedly administer medicines. The object of the Society is apparent from this preamble. That object is to bring educated physicians together for mutual support, consultation, and recognition. The Society proposes to marshal in its ranks all those physicians who have submitted to a thorough and sufficient educa- tion and preparation before assuming the responsibilities of the profession. 'Ihe object of the Society is to distinguish such men from the presumptuous and ignorant quack who, without training or study, administers drugs of which he knows nothing, and the use of which in disease is fraught with danger to health and life. The Society prescribes no method or system of medicine, no rule of practice; neither does it forbid any. It indorses neither allo- pathy nor homeopathy nor antipathy nor hydropathy. It neither denies nor affirms Cullen's theory of fever, nor Todd's. It does not make belief in Bigelow's notion of self-limited diseases a condi- 55 tion of membership; neither would it expel old Dr. Shattuck or Strong, or any of our old heroic practitioners, were they alive, be- cause they did not accept Holmes' idea of a good physician ; viz., to watch your patient carefully, but trouble and endanger him with as little medicine as possible. On all such points it is silent. It only demands that its members shall be men who have faithfully weighed and examined all systems ; men of trained minds, compe- tent to form a judgment on such questions, men of such education, skill, and experience as justify them in assuming the care of the sick. It runs no line between this system or that. The line that it intends to draw is one that shall separate education from igno- rance, the man of careful and honest training from the charlatan and the quack. Inside of this line it leaves every one of its mem- bers entirely free to exercise the healing art according to his own best judgment. All systems and theories are free to all. They may and do practise, some on one principle and some on another, while many follow no principle or theory, but are guided entirely by experience,— and no one objects or has any right to object. All may give large doses of medicine or small ones, or none at all. Many use all the means known to the art of healing — ponderable bodies and imponderable agencies, all the various uses of water— hot and cold, — electricity and galvanism, Perkinsism and animal magnetism, and whatever else that is known or to be known. All that our Society undertakes to secure is that its members shall be men sufficiently educated to be competent to decide between rival theories, and of such good judgment that their course shall honor the profession, and serve the public health. If 1 am not correct in this statement of the purposes of this Society, please, gentlemen, open its records and show me where it states what par- ticular s3rstem it does sanction. Please to show us in the by-laws or charter of the Society any indorsement of any system of prac- tice. You cannot do it, for it is not there. As Dr. Luther Parks, the Chairman of the Prosecuting Committee, said in the beginning of these trials, tk We have no S3'stem; every one is entirely free to do as he pleases." " In this room," said he, " the doctors used to contend with old Dr. Strong against his enormous doses; but no one could deny his right to do just as he pleased, and every one had the same right." Various and numerous have been the theories believed in, practised on and promulgated in this Society. Even Perkinsism was allowed and practised in this Society, within the last century. It went out of use, not by summoning its votaries before this tribunal: that might have prolonged its use. Perkinsism and Astrology might be used in the Massachusetts Medical Society to-day, and undisturbed, so long as it was unsuccessful, and the large fees did not find their way into the pockets of the astrologers and tractorators. The learned and witty Dr. 0. W. Holmes ridicules the efficacy of nine tenths of all the drugs which the founders of this Society used, and, excepting one or two, he considers all drugs 56 injurious, — is sure mankind would be healthier if drugs had never been discovered, and is not quite sure the same would not have been the case had physicians never appeared You remember his saying : " If all the medicines were thrown into the sea it would be all'the better for mankind, but all the worse for the fishes." Is this treason to the Massachusetts Medical Society? If we are justly accused, what of Dr. Holmes? Does any one propose to arraign him as undermining the very foundations of this Society? Why not, if the theory on which we are accused be correct? Now, gentlemen, if rn3' representation of the Society be correct, why are we arraigned? Educated we certainly arc to the Society's content ; otherwise we should never have been admitted. Besides, we can point to as many 3 ears of faithful study and practice as you can. How. then, have we violaied our duties since? Have we ludicrous^' failed in grappling with disease? Have we sported with the lives of our patients? Have we deluded the ignorant classes to their hurt, extoiting fees and tendering nothing in return? Have we di-graced the Society by parading a notion of medicine that no sane man would countenance, which trifles with human life and brings contempt on the piofession ? Gentlemen, on all these points we are willing to measure our.selves with vou. Yoiir system bus had possession of the Commonwealth for two centuries. Ours has been known here not quite forty years. Making fair allowance for time, we have as many families trusted to our care as you have. And our patients are not the careless, the ignorant, the needy, who must take what they can get, or the reckless, carried away by every new whim. No ; we count among our patients the rich, who have tried every clime for health, every city for medical skill, every the- ory for efficient help ; we have the foremost men at the bar, in the pulpit, on the exchange. In intelligence, social position, and world- wide culture, the men and women who trust their lives to us may be fairly measured with any who consult you. On this point we have done the Society no dishonor. Ui.t. second, have we failed fo help these friends? Have we been found wanting in severe disease? Foity years is sufficient time for trial. The evidence that they find us efficient helpers is that they continue to trust us. '1 bird : lint is our method empiricism and quackery? Who is a> thorized to say that of a sys em which two generations of the best educated men in this country and in Europe continue to trust; which the fon most governments of Europe reco'iiize; which has its hospitals, bo:h city and national, all over the wo,Id ; which dares to compa.e its success in curing di-ea-e with the best of 30U? It weld-wide recognition, unequalled success in curing disease and the c mfidence of the most e.di.d.ieiied classes hero and in Europe do not lift a system into sufficient character to pre- vent its use disgracing this Society, please describe to us, gentle- men, what evidence of usefulness you do demand' 57 Again, gentlemen, other members of the Massachusetts Medical Society have organized themselves into other societies for the cul- tivation of medicine and for special purposes, just as the homeo- pathists ha\e done. The G3'necological Society, whose blatant and noisy members have done so much to disturb the harmony of this Society, lias for its object the study of the diseases of women. Yet no one of them has been arraigned here. Why not? Is it be- cause they have no principle or system ? But we who have a s\ stem, and practise in accordance with it, are called to answer for it. The object of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medic d Scciety is the culture of medicine according to a law of nature, which law is recog- nized (ignorantly perhaps) even in the Massachusetts Medical Society. This law is expressed by the formula of Hahnemann — " Similia similibus cnrantur." Hippocrates acknowledged the truth of this law, and Ilufeland sent some patients, whom he could not cure, to consult Dr. Hahnemann. Why do vou apply snow to a frozen part, and distant heat to a burn? These practices are traditional, and are used empirically by the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, never thinking that this is homeopath3" of the rankest kind. There are many other instances in which you cure diseases homeopathically without once dreaming that you are guilty of trenching on the domain of homeopath}'. One of these is the use of purgatives in affections of the bowels, and thus hun- dreds are killed every year in this city by 3'our heroic and danger- ous doses. If the allopaths would follow out and profit by the experience of the homeopaths, and give their minute doses, the results would show them the superiority of the latter over the former. They have lately learned that minute doses of ipecacu- anha will cure nausea and vomiting, while the3T have given the laige doses of that ding for a century — first increasing vomiting and thereby curing it — on the homeopathic principle, to be sure ; but so " ignorantly and wickedly" applied, that great mischief is olten done thereby. But some wise observer among them has dis- covered that very minute closes of ipecacuanha will cure nausea and vomiting in a more prompt ami satisfactory manner. This astonishing discover}' is explained, they think, by the bold state- ment that ipecacuanha is a tonic ! How cunningly they avoid the homo' palhic law — "Simdia .similibus curantur I " There are many other instances of the same.nature which might be stated, showing that the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society for years have blundered along the road towards homeo- pathy ; but if t<>Ul of it, the learned reply is, " Homeopathy is a humiiiig," and that is the end of it. The motto on the seal of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society is " Certiorem me- dentil usum ma: nit." This motto expresses the meaning and the aspirations of thousands of earnest homeopathists in* this country — *4 to make the art of healing more certain." 58 If it be proved that the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical. Society has done something to benefit science and to aid in the cure of disease and to make medicine a more certain science, then I boldly assert that, instead of tending to disorganize the Massa- chusetts Medical Society, the tendency is rather to benefit and to aid that ancient corporation, and to put it on a higher plane of ob- servation. Any member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, should he become so far enlightened as to perceive that there is truth in the direction of homeopathy, could join the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society by avowing a desire to learn ho- meopathy. But leaving general statements, I propose to show }rou in detail that homeopathy is not what Dr. Luther Parks declared it to be, — a fraud, an imposition, " like the little joker, sometimes here and sometimes there," but that it is a useful and beneficent system of medicine, as true as an}r law known to physics. In order to make this clear I must state to you something which homeopathy has done. In the report made to the Massachusetts Medical Society, twenty-three years ago, Dr. Geo. Hay ward, Dr. Oliver W. Holmes, and Dr. J. B. S. Jackson said that homeopathy had done much good by teaching us that a great deal less medicine will do just as well,— (I quote from memory). Has any other special theory of medicine in your books or system of practice lived so long as hom- eopathy has — more than three-quarters of a century? and is it not stili fast gaining in favor with the best and most intelligent of the people? Homeopathy has done some good. There are cures made every day by homeopath}T which would astonish the whole medical world if they were known and under- stood. In the cure of diarrhea of adults in New England nothing can surpass the efficacy of this little white powder. It is sweet to the taste, inodorous, and I doubt if your chemistry can detect even a trace of medicine in it. It contains only one-millionth part of a grain of the drug in each grain, yet it cures with astonishing quick- ness — tute, cito, et jncunde. But even this medicine is too strong for the enteritis of infants, and if given will endanger life. Dr. Jacob Bigelow says that syphilis is not a self-limited dis- ease ; by which he means to say that the patient will never sponta- neously recover. If that is true, then I am able to demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathic medicine in that terrible disease. This little vial contains also a white, sweet, and inodorous powder — just one ten-thousandth part of it is medicine, the rest is sugar of milk. For the primary chancre I always give a small dose of this powder two or three times a day for one week. The sore will always look worse at the end of that time. I then give it only once or twice a day. When improvement is visible I give the medicine less frequently, and the patient is cured. Sometimes the young homeopathist will be impatient as the chancre looks worse, and will b.- tempted to make some local application, especially if he has 59 been gradated at an allopathic college. But let him wait, and his faith and works will be rewarded. No application to the chancre itself should be made, further thap to keep it clean ; and this little white and harmless powder will effect a cure without secondary symptoms. I am able to assure }-ou, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Board of Trial, that it is a very rare circumstance that one of my cases has ever developed secondary symptoms. This powder contains only one ten-thousandth part of the drug, while the other 9,999 parts are nothing but sugar of milk. This medicine has been ground four hours in a mortar. Dr. Jacob Bigelow says this disease is not self-curable. Then I ask you what cures these cases? If this homeopathic drug does not do it, please tell us what does? Or is Dr. Bigelow mistaken? Or am I mistaken? Very strange I should not know the disease after the study and practice of medicine more than a third of a century, and living in a city where it is very common. One or two more illustrations and I will not tire you with a fourth. The disease known as gall-stone, 3'ou, Mr. Chairman, none of }rou, gentlemen, members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, can cure. Not one of you ever pretended to have attained to that knowl- edge ; yet nothing is easier. The gallstone colic is easily recog- nized. Your 011I3' remedy is opiates, hypodermic injections, the inhalation of ether, or some other narcotic to allay the sufferings of the patient, and perhaps an aperient to hasten the discharge of the gall-stone. This is the best you know— the best you can do. In the winter of 1854-55 the discovery was made that gall-stone colic can be cured, radically cured. By the radical cure of gall-stone colic is meant that change in the system which prevents the recurrence of the malady. The remedy I hold in my hand. It is in these small, round pellets of sugar. They have been slightly moistened by a solution containing only one-millionth part of the drug and 999,99!» parts of alcohol and water. This bilious colic is caused by the lodgment of a calculus in the duct of the gall-bladder too small for its easy passage, or by other biliary obstructions. It is apt to recur every two or three weeks, once a month, and sometimes after longer intervals. One of its strong characteristics is periodicity. The remedy which I have exhibited has periodicity for one of its characteristics as well as a special affinity for the gall-bladder. It is now more than nineteen years since the value of this remedy came to my knowledge, and from that time to this it has not in a single instance failed to prevent the recurrence of the disease. I usually give six of these little pillets twice a day till ten doses are taken, then once a day till ten doses are taken, then every other day till ten doses are taken, etc., etc., etc., till at length they are taken only once a month. In the last nineteen 3'ears 1 have treated hundreds of cases, from all parts of the continent, and without a single fail ure. 60 There are many other diseases, the remedies for which are equally reliable and well'known to the accused. Can any of you gentlemen cure organic disease of the heart? Every member of our Society can. Are any of you able to tell us the remedy for rachitis in- fantum? We can tell you, for we have not failed once in more than twelve years. And we don't u-e any iron braces, nor any me- chanical appliances whatever, only some of those little sugar [tills, moistened with a solution of a drug, only one-millionth part of which is medicine, and 999.999 parts of which are alcohol aud water — nothing else. We are indicted for belonging to a Society which teaches these things, and for practising homeopathy, by means of which cures are made of diseases which those unacquainted with homeopathy would pronounce incurable. Is this " conduct unworthy and unbe- coming an honorable physician" ? • And does it "tend to disorgan- ize the Massachusetts Medical Societ3'"? If 3'ou don't believe these statements, we will obtain permission to refer 3-011 to the persons who have been cured of these (incurable?) diseases, who arc only too grateful to homeopathy not to be willing to tell 3'ou the truth? We may perhaps be permitted to refer you to the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, who pronounced those cases incurable. You charge us, gentlemen, with attempting to disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. Your only evidence is, that we have joined another society and practise homeopathy. I invite you, gentlemen, to show us how either of these acts tends to disor- ganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. You have not offered one tittle of evidence. On the contrary, I offer you the evidence of any and all of the accused, or any other members of our Homeo- pathic Society. They have told you that they never heard a word uttered, or knew of a plan laid to weaken your Society. But, on the contrary, that we have always cherished its welfare and sought its usefulness, and we have annually paid our dues. Now, gentlemen, let me ask you: Is there any by-law or rule in your Society which forbids its members from investigating homeo- pathy ? If not, suppose you take the lead and examine it. I have no doubt, if you will do so, you will all become homeopathists. lor loan say, as has been often said, I never knew a scientific man to fairly examine it who did not believe in it. Now, gentlemen, I make you this proposition, that at tie next annual meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, in June next, you ask that a com- mittee be appointed — one from each County in the State — or, if you prefer, one from each town and ward of the cities, to investi- gate the claims and pretensions of homeopathy, with instructions to report at the- next annual meeting. I pledge you, gentlemen, that we will aid you all in our power. Every facility shall be given you that can aid you inquiries. DECISION OF TI1E BOARD OF TRIAL The undersigned, having been appointed a Board of Trial for the purpose of trying William Bushnell, Milton Fuller, H. L. II. Hoffendahl, George Bussed, I. T. Talbot, David Thayer, Benjamin II. West, upon the foregoing charges and specifications, met the several parties charged on the 29th day of April, a. d. 1873, and by adjournment on other days between the said 29th April and the date hereof, and heard the evidence adduced in support of said charges, and heard the said several defendants, all of whom were personally present, and their evidence, averments and arguments in answer to said charges and specifications, and the parties having been fully heard, and the evidence and arguments on each side fully considered, we do find and determine that the said charges and specifications are all fully proved against each of said accused per- sons, and they are severally guilty of the charges aforesaid, and we therefore adjudge and determine that the said William Bushnell, Milton Fuller, 11. L. II. Hoffendahl, George Russell, I. T. Talbot, David Thayer, Benjamin II. West, be therefore expelled from their membership of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and report this our determination to the Massachusetts Medical Society at its annual meeting, for such action thereupon as to the Society may seem fit. (Signed) JEREMIAH SPOFFORD, AUGUSTUS TORREY, GEORGE II AY WARD, FREDERICK WINSOR. Being a majority of the Board of Trial. Dated May 19, 1873. A true copy. Chas. W. Swan, Secretary Board of Trial. MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY: — 'IHE RESPONSIBILITY, IN THIS MATTER, NOW RESTS ON TOU. / V TRIAL WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D., MILTON FULLER, M.D., SAMUEL GREGG, M.D., H. L. H. HOFFENDAHL, M.D., GEORGE RUSSELL, M.D., I. T. TALBOT, M.D., DAVID THAYER, M.D., and BENJ. H. WEST, M.D., ALL OF BOSTON, FOR PRACTISING HOMEOPATHY, WHILE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY, BEFORE JEREMIAH SPOFFORD, M.D............OF GROVELAND. AUGUSTUS TOUREY, M.D..............of BEVERLY. GEORGE HAYWARD/M.D...............of BOSTON. FREDERIC WINSOR, M.D............OF WINCHESTER. FRANCIS C GREENE, M.D...........of EASTHAMPTON. ON THE COMPLAINT OF LUTHER PARKS, M.D.................of BOSTON. K. !i. HODGDON, M.D...............of ARLINGTON. THOMAS L. GAGE, M.D..............OF WORCESTER. ASA MILLET, M.D...............of BRIDGEWATER. UEXJAMIX B. BREED, Ml)................of LYNN c t -...., . . - / PRIN"rK» J^OR m Kxamination and Consideration of the Fellows of tbe Massachusetts Medical Society. BOSTON, MAY, 18 73.