GOO
V372r
 \&31
YM
■MM 
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
Washington
Founded 1836
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
             Public Health Serrice 
 
 
Mr.
c
c* 11■*<■&*/{ £~fa ^^^>y-t

-^
REPORT  OF  THE  TRIAL
             ON AN INDICTMENT FOR
LIBEL IN "THE AMERICAN LANCET,"
                   CONTAINING
           THE WHOLE EVIDENCE,
  SPEECHES OF COUNSEL,  RECORDER'S CHARGE,
                     &c. &c.
ACCUSERS IN BEHALF OF THE STATE,
[VEj
DRS. J. B. BECK, A. G. LUDLOW, AND DIVERS OTHERS,
                     AGAINST
                DR. J. G. VOUGHT,     *
           Editor and Proprietor of the American Lancet;.-»;
   DR. WM. ANDERSON,   &  DR. SAMUEL OSBORN,
       Assistant Editor.             One of the Contributors.
I.
( \tw
 
».*.»,* kV
.... V
\t
 W
Coo



 IS3I
\ 
YcJOfhty  J~ota   Q
"TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT"
       REPORT OF THE TRIAL
             ..,---  ON AN INDICTMENT FOR
LIBEL  IN "THE AMERICAN LANCET,"
                       CONTAINING
            THE  WHOLE EVIDENCE,
   SPEECHES OF  COUNSEL, RECORDER'S  CHARGE,
                         &c. Ac
              ACCUSERS IN BEHALF OF THE STATE,

DRS. J. B. BECK, E. G. LUDLOW, AND DIVERS OTHERS,
                        AGAINST
                   DR. J. G. VOIGHT,
            Editor and Proprietor of tkc American Lancet;
   DR. WM. ANDERSON,   &  DR. SAMUEL  OSBORN,
        Assistant Editor.                 One of the Contributor n.

              NEW-YORK, JANJUARYp, |?^""'V <• T'syxF""" 
   [The following Letters appeared in the Courier and Enquirer
of January 25th, 1831.   Many do not understand the meaning ot
these letters—the mystery may  possibly be unfolded by the gen-
tlemen who wrote them.]
                                    New-York, Jan. 19, 1831.
     Dr. John Stearns :
  Sir—The statements contained under the signature of Medicus, pub-
lished in the American Lancet, and ascribed to you, representing the ex-
istence of an association of medical men in this city formed for purposes
dishonourable to themselves and injurious to the profession, are totally
without foundation.  Our names having  been connected without that
communication, we call upon you to  retract the injurious allegations
therein contained.
  Signed,  Ansel W. Ives, Alex. 11. Stevens, Francis U. Johnston, Gil-
bert Smith, J. Kearney  Rodgers, John Watts, Jr. Martin Paine, Daniel
W. Kissam, Jr. Joseph M.  Smith, Samuel W. Moore, NicollH. Dering.
John C. Cheesman, Richard K. Hoffman.


                                    New-York, Jan. 19,  1831.
  Whereas a publication, signed Medicus, has appeared in the American
Lancet, in relation to a secret Association of medical gentlemen in this
city, intimating, among  other  charges, that  they are  obligated to aid
each other in their  professional practice, to the exclusion of other phy-
sicians, and being now convinced that the injurious allegations contained
therein, are not true, I with pleasure acknowledge that I have  hitherto
entertained an erroneous belief of the  objects of the  Association, and
regret the effects of the unfavourable opinion I have expressed on that
subject.                Signed,           JOHN STEARNS.
                        COMMUNICATION.
  0= The publication of the very exceptionable letter addressed to me
by the gentlemen said  to belong to a secret society in this city, is, on
their part, entirely gratuitous.  My statement was prepared agreeably
to their request, before I saw or heard of that  letter, and had I antici-
pated its publication in connection with my statement,  I  should never
have given it to them.  They  expressly stipulated with me to publish
my simple statement alone, without any comment or remark.  The re-
sult shows how much I have been deceived.      JOHN STEARNS. 
LIBEL SUIT.
             NEW.YORK,  JANUARY  28,  1831.

  The trial of an action  for  a libel,  brought against  Drs.
John G. Vought,  William Anderson, and  Samuel Osborn,
commenced on Saturday last in the Court of Sessions.
  The alleged libel was published in " The American Lan-
cet" of 15th October, 1830, and is in  the following words :

            [For the commencement of the Indictment, see page 38.]

               " To the Editors of the American Lancet.
      " Messrs. Editors,—
  '* The existence of a secret society among the medical gentlemen at-
tached to the College of Physicians in this city, has long been a subject
of complaint among physicians.  This apnears to be a branch of a simi-
lar society in Philadelphia, which was firsymade known to the public by
the  testimony elicited from some of its members, on a trial for slander.
Although they refused to disclose the whole  extent of the combination,
sufficient was obtained to sho^that they were bound by the most sol-
emn oaths to aid each other nmhcir professional practice, consultations
&c. and to oppose those of the  profession who were not members, there-
by effecting, as  far as  practicable,  a perfect monopoly.   The editor of
the  Medical and Physical Journal, in this city, published a sketch of the
trial, and added  a hope, that a similar society did not exist in New-York.
This excited a most  vindictive combination  against the editor, and he
had soon after to suspend the publication of his journal.  This is only
one instance of  many that might be adduced of the existence in this city
of a conspiracy against those physicians who are not on its list of mem-
bers, or who have refused to take the illegal and profane oaths which
they administer.   A similar combination once existed among the tailors,
to regulate prices and monopolize business;  but an indictment against
some of its members dissolved the conspiracy.  That every member of
4 C Z  *I5 3 
4
LIBEL SUIT.
 society conspiring against the common good, is liable to similar putii^
 ment, is a principle of common law, and established by precedent.  L
 I am more particularly opposed to this society from the injury which the
 medical school in Barclay- strfcfrmay sustain. A report is prevalent that
 the president, trustees, and/processors, *bf that college are among  its
 members.  This report, whether true* or -false, has the effect to organize
 an  opposition to that college, which will result in sending pupils to other
 colleges, and withholding from that the patronage and support necessary
 for its existence/ JVot in the indictment.']
  " If you wish to'put down the secret  society among  physicians, you
 must identify it, you must plaTe*ff*in the college where it belongs, or de-
 signate the members some other way, that tljey may be known to th«
 public.                                              Medicus.

  " The following is a list  furnished us;  we have, however, heard of
 others belonging to the  fraternity.  The^association can, without be-
 traying its deeds, furnish a correct list, for it cannot be denied such an
 association does exist.
  " John Watts, M. D.  President of the College of Physicians and
 Surgeons, New-York ; John Augustine Smitll^M. D. Professor of  Ana-
 tomy, in do.; John B. Beck, M.D.  Professor of Materia Medica,m do.;
 James M. Smith, M. D. Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medi-
 cine, in do. ; Alexander H. Stevens, M.D. Professor of Surgery, in do.;
 Edward  Delafield, M. D. Professor of Obstetrics, in  do.;  Nicoll  H.
 Bering, M.D.; Edward G-fLudlow, M.D. ;  Samuel W. Moore, M.D.;
 Ansel Vv": Tves,.,M- D.  ;  Joip. C.  Cheeseman, M. D.;  Gilbert Smith ;
 Martin Paine, M.D.; John K^Lrney Rodgers, M.D.; Richard K.  Hoff-
 man, M.D.;  D. W. Kissam'MTD.;  Francis U. Johnson, M. D.   Most
 illustrious and magnanimous seventeen/  There seems to be something
 ominous in the number 17!!         ^^                  Ed."

   Two   hundred and"! seventy witnesses were  subpenaed  to
 prove that  said society wTas  a  branch of the  Kappa Lambda
 of  Philadelphia, and  that its  members were in other places
 through the United States.
  The indictment charges  the  traversers  with  having mali-
ciously,  &c. published  this libel to the great  damage, he. of
Edward G. Ludlow, M. D., John B. Beck,  M. D.,  and di-
vers others.
  Messrs. Maxwell, J. R. Livingston,  and John W, H. Bell, 
LIBEL SUIT.                     5
appeared for Dr. Anderson; Drs. Vought and Osborn pleaded
in their proper persons.
   Mr. Maxwell, on behalf of his client, moved that the par-
ties should be tried separately, on the ground that it was ne-
cessary to his defence to make use of the testimony of the gen-
tlemen with  whom he was indicted.
   Dr. Vought moved to be  tried separately on a similar
ground.
   The District Attorney objected, and  said he must try the
defendants all together.
   Dr. Osborn said, he  not only requested, but he demanded
a separate trial.
   The District Attorney  replied,  that  as  for Dr.  Osborn's
request,  he might make some reply ;  but for his demand, he
would make no answer.
   Dr. Vought addressed the court and said, on his  own part
lie was very desirous of having  a separate trial; that he was
very  unfortunately situated if he was obliged to be tried with
the other two gentlemen, for these reasons: first, I  want my
trial  postponed,  as I am unprepared to make my defence ;
second, I am here without counsel, my attorney on whom I
depended to aid me, is out of the city, and I have had no time
to prepare any other since I  knew he could not be here to-day ;
and thirdly, I depend on the evidence of these two gentlemen
to prove myself not guilty of this libel;  and if I am deprived
of their testimony, it is impossible for me to obtain justice on
the trial.
   The District Attorney replied, that he would take no advan-
tage of Dr.  Vought's situation, but was determined to try them
all together.
   Dr. Vought then said, he must be  his  own lawyer, and
would rest his case wholly on the proof of his innocence of
malice, and not upon the quibbles of the law.
   Dr. Osborn made a similar request on the ground that he
                           1* 
6
LIBEL SUIT.
 could in no wise be implicated with either of the others if tried
 alone.
   The District Attorney opposed these motions ; he contended
 that no one of the persons indicted could be used as a witness
 until he had been declared guilty, or not guilty.
   The  Court decided in favour of  the view of the case ad-
 vanced by the District Attorney.
   The jury were then sworn, and the District Attorney opened
 the case, and proceeded to examine his witnesses.
   Jonathan Seymour sworn.   The work entitled the American
 Lancet  is printed in his office ; Drs. Vought and  Anderson
 were the editors; does not know who wrote the article in ques-
 tion here;  does  not know that Dr. Osborn had any connec-
 tion with the work.   Cross examined by Dr. Osborn—Never
 knew that Dr. Osborn had any  connection with the publica-
 tion of the work: by Dr. Vought—never saw the extra num-
ber of the Lancet (bound in the second volume) to  his know-
ledge before;  does not know if that number was printed in
 his office.
  George P. Scott examined.  Is foreman in  Mr. Seymour's
printing-office; does not know by whom the  communication
charged as libellous was sent to the office ; nor dqes he know
who wrote the remarks which follow it; does not know that
Dr. Osborn had  any connection  with the article ; never knew
that Dr. O. had any connection with the Lancet;  never saw
 him correct proof sheets ; knew only Drs.  Vought and An-
 derson.   Cross examined by Dr. Vought—He saw the extra
 after it was printed  ; it was not printed  in  the office of Mr.
 Seymour.
   John  B. Beck, M. D. examined.   Is  a professor of medi-
 cine in  Barclay-street College; called upon Mr. Seymour
 after the publication of the libel, to  know who were the editors
 of the Lancet;  (the  information given by Mr. Seymour, as
 well as the general  report on this  point, were objected to as
 evidence)  when the work was about to be commenced, Doctor 
LIBEL SUIT.
7
Vought called upon witness to subscribe for it, and witness al-
ways  considered him the editor; read the matter  charged as
libellous ;  is one of the persons named amongst the seventeen;
never belonged to any such society as is there described. Cross
examined by Dr. Vought—In the conversation which was had
between witness and Dr. V. when the work was about to be
established, there was nothing which could lead witness to be-
lieve that there was any malice intended against  any of the
medical profession ; Dr. V. asked witness at the same  time to
contribute articles for the work.   Witness refused so to do.
  Edward G. Ludlow, M. D. examined.   Is  a physician in
this city;  is one of the persons named in the libel; never be-
longed to a society of the character described therein.  Cros?
examined  by  Dr. Vought—Dr. V. called on witness to sub-
scribe to the Lancet; Dr. V. also asked the witness to contri- •*.
bute articles for it, stating as  his reason for  the request, that  •
he (Dr. L.) had had an opportunity of becoming acquainted
with the causes,  &tc. of western  epidemics; witness  at that
time did not imagine Dr. V. had any malice towards any mem-
ber of the medical profession; nor was  Dr. V. ever guflty of
any breach of medical ethics  to witness's knowledge ; witness
heard there was a society in this  city, but did not believe that
its objects were those charged in the libel; has reason to be-
lieve that a society of physicians did exist, but does  not know
what its object were;  has  never  applied for admission to this
society, nor was he ever asked to become a member.
  The District Attorney having rested the case for the prose-
cution here,  it was submitted  that there was no proof against
Doctor Osborn.  The jury, after a few minutes consultation,
returned a verdict of not guilty in the case of Dr. Osborn.
  Mr. Livingston  opened the case for  the defence, he dwelt
upon  the importance of the case not only as regards thtfchar-
acter  of his client,  but  as regards the  medical profession, a
proof of .whpse interest in the result, might be seen'in the
number of them who-were present.   He then took  a cursory 
8
LIBEL SUIT.
    review of the objects for which the " American Lancet' wa*
    established ; amongst these objects he said was the exposure of
    any evil, which its editors  had reason to believe  existed in
    the  medical  practice of this city.   Because  they have done
    this, said the gentleman, they have drawn down on them the
    enmity of seventeen individuals of great influence in this city.
    The gentleman then proceeded to define the law of libel, to
    show that malice was a necessary ingredient, and to  show that
    the alleged libel bore on its face, evidence that its publication
    was not  caused by malice ; the reason for its publication was
    stated in that part  left out of the indictment.   The gentle-
    man, stated that he would be able to  prove that Dr. Vought
    was out  of the city when the article complained of was pub-
    lished, and that in such cases, Dr. Anderson had no power of
-"  publishing or  withholding  communications ; that  we would
 •   prove  the facts charged in the alleged libel were substantially
    true ;  that as the editors  did not seek  this  investigation, they
    certainly would not shrink from it; they unfurl before you the
    banner of defiance ;  they have clothed themselves in an armour
    of testimony that will bear them out triumphant.
      After  the  gentleman  had concluded, the District Attorney
    said he did not intend to  permit any evidence to be offered as
    to the existence or  objects of any society said  in the libel to
    exist,  unless the defendants  could show that Drs. Ludlow and
    Beck  were connected with it, as the indictment was laid for a
    libel against them.
      Mr. Maxwell argued  against  this  motion of the  District
    Attorney, and cited the opinion of Chancellor Kent.
      Dr. Hosack was called on, as a witness for the defence ; the
    District  Attorney inquired what it was intended to prove by
    him.   Mr. Livingston said he intended to  show from the evi-
    dence of Dr. H. that the existence of a secret medical society
    in this city had long been  a subject of  complaint.  The D.
    Attorney said he would  permit this evidence if Mr. Maxwell
    declared that he expected to be able to show that Drs. Ludlow 
LIBEL SUIT.
9
and  Beck  were connected with  it.   Mr. Maxwell declined
making any admission on this subject.   The Court decided
with the D. Attorney, and Mr. Maxwell took a formal excep-
tion to the  decision.
  Mr. Maxwell was  about to call another witness, when the
D. Attorney said he would object to all evidence of the truth
of that part of the  article complained of,  which  is signed
Medicus, unless the  defendants  could prove that Drs. Beck
and  Ludlow were members of the society there alluded to.
Mr. Maxwell wished to know from the court what  he was to
defend his client from.  He said if the D. Attorney cut out that
part of the  article signed Medicus, there was nothing in the
other part which could be called  libellous.  The D. Attorney
replied, he did not cut out any part, but he wished it to be
understood  that he merely objected  to proof under the first
part,  until  the connection of Drs. L. and  B. with such  a
society was shown.  The court decided with  the D. Attorney,
and Mr. Maxwell excepted to the decision.
  Samuel  Osborn sworn.   The manuscript now  shown, is
the original of the article  signed Medicus: witness did  not
write this communication.  The list of names attached to this
is in the hand-writing of the witness.   Mr. Maxwell asked,
do you believe this list was correct: the D. Attorney objected
to this, and all other such questions,  unless  it could be  dis-
tinctly shown, that Drs. Ludlow and Beck were members.
   The witness however said that he believed the list was cor-
rect, and was about to give his  reasons for  this belief.  The
District Attorney said, he would like to treat the  gentleman
of the medical profession with courtesy, but he  would remind
the gentleman, that to persist in answering a  question objected
to,  would  be a contempt  of court.   The two  papers were
here  again handed to witness, and he  said neither of them
was in the hand-writing of Dr. Anderson, nor had Dr. Ander-
son any volition with regard to the publication of the articles
complained of.  Dr. Vought was  absent from the city when 
10                    LIBEL SUIT.

the  publication was made,  and it was  sent  to  the  printing
office,  and published by the  authority of the  witness,  Dr.
Mitchill, and  Dr.  Pascalis.   Witness  himself  decided  that
this communication should  be  published, and  Dr. Pascalis
coincided.
  Mr. Scott recalled.  Never  before saw either of the  com-
munications now presented  to him.  When  Dr. Vought left
the  city he told witness that Dr. Anderson had  the editorial
department under his control ;  does  not know  who brought
the  articles here  shown into the printing office; all the busi-
ness was  carried on by the authority and  responsibility of
Dr. Vought:  by Dr. Vought, do you know  of  your own
knowledge,  that I had  the exclusive control of the work .
Ans.  I do not.
  The court here adjourned over to Monday.
                  Monday, January 10.
  At the opening of the court, Dr. Vought  commenced his
defence.  He said—
  The alleged misrepresentation,  from which I am about to
defend myself, I trust will be duly considered, and all that may
tend directly or indirectly to show my innocence, and  also of
all who are accused of the  charge,  be admitted as testimony
before  this court.   The American  Lancet never has denied
its  association,  nor ever sailed under false colours, like the
Kappa Lambda Journal, published in  Philadelphia.   At the
time the communication in the Lancet, alluded  to, was  pub-
lished, I was out of the city, and the control of the work left
with the contributors,  which, the contract between Dr.  Ander-
son and myself will designate, which says, that " no personal
feelings shall be indulged  in,  or inserted  in said work,  by
either  party, between  themselves  and other physicians;  and
all differences shall be referred to  Drs. Samuel L. Mitchill,
Felix  Pascalis, and Samuel Osborn, whose decisions, in  all 
LIBEL  SUIT.
11
cages, shall be final."  I  will not pretend to justify  the acts
of others, who can speak for themselves, but own every motive
which has governed me in the publication of this work, and trust
the contributors will do the same.   If so, mysteries may  be
unfolded to the great benefit, both of the  medical  profession
and of the public generally.   One year ago, about the first of
January 1830, I commenced a monthly periodical, called  the
New-York Medical Inquirer, to be conducted by an  association
of physicians and surgeons, residing in different parts of  the
United  States, under the motto-

         Let mystery be stripped of all pretence,
         And practice be combined with common sense.

   It appears, gentlemen of the jury, that the American Lancet
is arraigned  on all sides.   The steam quacks  have published
a pamphlet against us, and  say we have conferred upon them.
" without fear or regard," " the honourable title ofmanslayers."
On the other hand, we are prosecuted in a far less honourable
and more cowardly manner, by some of our medical brethren,
who please to rank  themselves among the patrons of the day.
They have never dared, as the steam and root doctors did, to
raise  their  pens in opposition to  us, but fled to the grand
jury  with their complaints, without giving us an opportunity
to make amends, in case we had found ourselves  innocently
led into an error.
   The design of this work, (as the prospectus indicates,  see
the cover, Vol. I.  No. 1,)  was " to support truth, to expose
error, and to render the profession somewhat more  responsible
to  the  public,  than  the  mysteries  of the art  have heretofore
made it; for, after all, it is the «vox popidi' which decides in
this, our favoured  country."   Again we  say in the advertise-
ment, (see No.  1, pages iii. and iv.) as follows :—

   " It is not from an avowal of any singular principles that we desire to
draw  the public attention; we aim to acquire  the acknowledgment of
the fact, that the course we adopt will be conducive to the  investigation 
12
LIBEL SUIT.
 and propagation of medical truths; whereby the pharmacopoeia of th*
 physician may be enriched from the mine of experience, and those uniti-
 ated in the mysteries of our profession, be put on their guard against the
 effects of licensed quackery or ignorant imposture.
   " To investigate the pretensions of physicians who claim  credit for
 their skill on the score of medical honours conferred at universities, and
 those of the scientific licentiate ; to strip the mask from arrogant pre-
 tension, and convince the  public that impudence is not learning, and that
 innate stupidity is not of consequence in the mystic knowledge of the
 healing art, will form one  item of our design  in this work.
   " This journal, as our prospectus  indicates, is intended to exhibit Irons
 time to time, as far as attainable, the prominent features in the practice
 of the several medical institutions of this country, together with  reports
 of individual cases.  Medical ethics, in principle and in practice, will be
 a  subject of consideration, as also the policy pursued by the legislature
 of this state, with regard to the medical profession.   The acts of medica'
 societies will be discussed; their usefulness and the reverse investigated;
 and the merits of public men as teachers in the profession will be openly
 canvassed."
   The acts of medical societies have  been discussed in our
 work, and it now  remains  for  a jury of our country,  before
 whom we are arraigned as criminals, and also the "voxpopuli,"
 to  decide,  whether  we have canvassed the conduct of secret
 medical  societies, to the injury of the public or not; and whe-
 ther we are, as this bill designates, the "malicious and evil-
 disposed persons, and wickedly and maliciously contriving and
 intending, one Edward  G. Ludlow and John B. Beck, and
 divers  other persons, to detract, scandalize and vilify, with force
 and arms, wickedly and maliciously did write, print and pub-
 lish, and cause to be  published, in  said pamphlet, entitled the
American Lancet, a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory
libel, purporting to  be a communication to   the editors of the
 American Lancet."
   "Medical Ethics,"  as  our  prospectus also indicates, "in
principal and in practice, will be a theme for this work."   Thi>
subject embraces one of the prominent features  of the Lancet
alluded to, and accordingly must be involved in the  present
discussion, connected with this alleged libel. 
LIBEL  SUIT.
13
  We shall endeavour to prove, that this subject was not con-
nected with the work from wicked or malicious motives, to per-
secute  or injure individuals, but for the general interest of the
medical profession,  and for the welfare of the public.  We
shall try to prove that secret and  private associations, consist
ing of medical men, have existed in our city and country, formed
for  concocting measures to promote the individual interests of
their own members, to the injury of the mass of the profession
and the public ;  and that such acts are deemed a breach of the
proper medical ethics which ought to govern a free and liberal
profession.
  We  shall not attempt to prove that men  have no legal au-
thority to form secret societies, to accomplish their ends; but
we  shall try to make it appear that the liberty of the press en-
titles us, as  editors of a public journal,  to warn our brethren
of the  effects of such associations, and even expose the names
of its members to  the public,  when we are credibly informed
who they  are, as we have been in  this case.   Does not the lib-
erty of the  press allow editors  of newspapers to warn the
public of the improper character  of politicians who are set up
for  offices of emolument in our government?  If any intrigue
is known  to be used  by individuals, is it not published without
reserve ?  If members of christian churches or even ministers
of the gospel, are guilty of conspiracy, hypocrisy, or immorali-
ty,  are not their names published in the daily  prints ?  And
why have not the editors of medical journals the  same privilege
to expose the acts  of designing men, who combine to monopo-
lize the interest and the honours of the profession?  Why not
expose the secret measures, secret remedies,  and  private quack-
ery, which corrupt the profession, which pick the pockets  of
our honest and innocent yeomanry, and in fact bring thousands
to a premature grave ?
  I shall  attempt to  prove before this jury,  that my design,  as
the  proprietor and editor of the American Lancet, has always
been, to publish nothing but  the truth,  lvithout partiality  to
                          2 
14
LIBEL SUIT.
 either of the medical colleges which existed in this state, or to
 any individuals : see Lancet, Vol. II. page 3, where it says in
 a note:—

   " We have been accused of partiality to both colleges, and of leaning
 towards the old college for the purpose of  getting its support.
   " We refer our readers to our columns for the refutation of this charge,
 and shall  offer no other  defence.  The surmise in the ' Medical and
 Physical Journal,' of April last, stating that' its editor is understood to
 be' a certain gentleman' whose talents and learning are not unknown to
 the profession in this state,' is gratuitous.
   " In the editorial arrangement of this work, from its  commencement
 to this date, no individual editor has been acknowledged, the matter be-
 ing prepared, as always avowed,'by an association of physicians and
 surgeons.' We profess to labour,' to support truth, to expose error, to
 improve the  medical  profession, and to instruct and benefit heads of
 families upon subjects connected with medical science.'   These  are the
 objects contemplated, instead of the 'two-fold object' mentioned  by our
 brother journalist,' to  impart medical information to the people, and to
 correct certain abuses in the medical profession.'  This is a subject upon
 which  we have already tested the taste of both the profession and the
 people, sufficiently to satisfy us with our ' difficult dilemma.' "

   And again in the same No. pages 4 and 5, we say :

  " Our design is to open our columns to all whose practice and princi-
ples  are sound and honourable.  We are willing to be considered the
open foes  to dealers in medical  mystery,  either in colleges, societies,
secret combinations, public institutions,  or private practice.   We know
that  already we have roused the hostility of a set of impostors, who for
years have kept closed from the public eye the gates of medical know-
ledge,  which  heretofore have stood,  and still remains to be, too mnch
 cloaked in a technical and dead language, well calculated to conceal its
 virtues or vices from all who have not spent years in investigation.  It
 is indeed mortifying to  hear that  we are judged the enemies of our own
 profession  even  by those whose duplicity  and hostile disposition leads
 them, for self-interest, to frown at and ridicule the cause we have under-
 taken to advocate, which  we deem calculated to remove much evil, both
 to the public health and the profession at large.   We console ourselves
 with the flattering countenance we have already received ; and that the
 most honourable and scientific of our  own profession, with our most en-
 lightened private citizens, favour us with their patronage, seeing, as we 
LIBEL SUIT.
15
do, that the age in which we live is one of reform, and he who is engaged
in repairing abuses in the medical art, where health and life are at stake,
has undertaken a noble and invaluable enterprise, unjust in principle to
no individual; but if once fully attained, must prove a great and lasting
benefit to the human family.
  " In the succeeding numbers of this journal we shall be indefatigable
in the medical department,to recommend the following objects of reform:
  " We 6hall oppose, expose, and denounce all  secret  medical associa-
tions, organized for the purpose of monopoly in teaching or practice, and
the compulsory measures of obliging physicians to pay a. bonus for joining
medical societies."

   The work speaks in favour of Dr.  Beck:  see Lancet, Vol.
I. page 27, as follows:

  " ' Is Dr. Hosack ignorant that before 1795 all his brother doctors in
New-York were believers in contagion, and that, according to the avowal
of Dr. Townsend himself, there are at this time  not more than three or
four contagionist doctors in that city, where we find above four hundred
persons  exercising the healing  art ?  Is he ignorant that at each new
apparition of the yellow fever in New-York, the number of medical con-
 Tjrionists have progressively  diminished, until they are now reduced to
   v<i or four believing in contagion ?   Is he ignorant that after the epi-
   m Vl822, the last that afflicted that  city, one of his most distinguished
 1   °' *"* ^°^n ^* -^eck' fr°m respect to truth, publicly renounced the
         °%ntagion ?  Is he ignorant that Dr.  Beck has exposed with
 candour the ti...   c   ,     .   ,.    . .          ,         ,,
             Uves tor changing his opinion, in an eloquent and learned
 refutation, whiciSemadeinl823?I„

   Does  this look Iik,  partiaiitv  towards Rutgers  College?
   I shall also prove, that ^ control of the American Lancet(
(or, at least,  that part of it wfe*  rdates to  the secret medical
associations or  communications,  *hich might tend to injure
individuals or associations,) was consign^ to the fatherly care
of an association of old  and respectable physicians in this city,
consisting of Samuel L. Mitchill, Felix Pascalis,  and Samuel
Osborn : see  a letter from these gentlemen h Lancet,  No. 1,
page vii. and not to the care of Dr. Anderson or myself.
   The District Attorney here interrupted Dr. V. by remarking 
16
LIBEL  SUIT.
 that it was out of order to introduce matter in an opening ad-
 dress, which it was not intended to give in evidence.
   Dr. Vought replied, he hoped the court would permit him
 to lay before the jury a vindication of the course which he had
 believed necessary to follow, and of the objects for which that
 work in which the alleged libel was published, was established,
 with a view of showing that it was not for the gratification of
 malice that  the publication was made.  The Lancet was esta-
 blished for objects in which  he  (Dr. V.) felt so deeply inte-
 rested that he had parted with even that which  is called  the
 symbol of professional dignity—his horse and gig.  He made
 this  sacrifice  for the interest he  felt in the advancement of
 the medical  profession.
   The Court  said, it is the undoubted right  of every citizen to
 defend himself in that mode which he believes is best calculated
 to make his innocence apparent;  but it is not easy for gentle-
 men unaccustomed to the forms of procedure  in judicial courts,
 to confine themselves within the strict boundaries of the point
 at issue.
   Dr. Vought replied, he intended to prove all that he sb
 state.  Dr. V. proceeded to address the jury, as follow :
   If the court please, and gentlemen of the jury, thrjS a    ~
ject of great interest to the community, and far mre to myse»«
 I consider my interest, honour, reputation, nr "*"e» an(*  a  ' at
 stake in the  decision of the question.   I f-1 as if l had been
 surrounded  by  reptiles, watching  ttr opportunity to  sting
 me with their poisonous tongues.  ^ike snakes in the grass,
 they have been  crawling around me for years, ever ready to
 enfold me in  their  windings.  The Medical  Society  of  the
 City and County of JVew-York was at one time converted into
 a secret medical monopoly.  Their business  was done by cau-
 cusing; and when  my document of complaints against their
 president, was handed to them, I was ordered  to leave its walls;
 and  they refused to go into business so long as I remained.
 They were adamant to impartial justice.  I appealed  to the 
LIBEL  SUIT.
17
 society for redress, for justice, and for a  hearing of my own
 defence :  it was denied me.   I hope and trust I shall not have
 a similar  cause of complaint against this court before whom I
 am  arraigned as  a criminal.  The letter was read.

                                     '' NEW-YORK, JUNE 14, 1830.

       " TO THE  EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN LANCET.

 " GENTLEMEN—
   "  We have received your favour of the 12th instant, informing us of
 the new arrangements you have thought proper to adopt, for the contin-
 uation of your journal;  and of the laudable motives by which you are
 actuated ;  also requesting us to contribute by such materials as we might
. think appropriate and instructive.
   " The new title that you inscribe upon it indicates an operative spirit,
 which is felt to the quick from the London Lancet, but more particularly
i from the Parisian,  which reviews generally the medical and surgical
i practice of all hospitals, as well as that  of the most fashionable prac-
 titioners.
   " We observe that every where, and for a great many  years back,
i medical journals are nothing better than a collection of memoirs or essays
it on professional subjects; the prominent object of which is to constitute
 the  iEsculapian authorship and fame  of the respective writers.   Some
I of these productions are good ;  but of others we are not induced to say
 much as to scientific improvement.  The whole is ephemeral; all, in a
 few years  or months, is ingulfed in swelled piles on our shelves  by the
', numerical  figures or  data, which were perhaps  even  forgotten during
' their  short interval of exhibition.   Who  is he  in the path of science,
1 who would place his  fate, honour, and  reputation in the  ranks of a
 periodical?  All these push each other out of the way; for rarely will
 vou see the modern essayist on  the same subject, quote or mention anew
 "his most ancient predecessor! They must therefore at  early time disap-
 pear, and  be mingled with the  dust of all periodicals; or rather like the
 sands of the beach, be scattered away before the winds of heaven.—A
 natorum et qui nascentur ab illis.
   " But, gentlemen, it will not be so with your Lancet, provided it cuts
 keen and pricks deep; especially, if you analyze and review the scientific,
 systematic, botanic, and improved practice of our own days, and compare
 it with the old practice.   Nothing is more common, now-a-days, than to
 hear of the sudden death of a man, young and strong, who had just been
 cured of a most violent  chronic rheumatism, and the like!   Above all,
                              2* 
15
LIBEL SUIT.
 gentlemen, permit us to recommend to you to hold  up the necessity  of
 freedom in medical instruction, unshackled from the forms of privileged
 professors; because emulation is then never fostered and promoted j
 science is best obtained and diffused in the ranks of equality, in which
 the nation herself impels every one to become the first.   Oppose, also,
 the existence of all privileged medical bodies, organized as grand juries
 over the profession, whether for science or for morals.  Such tyranny,
 in a land of liberty, cannot be countenanced.  We would as readily be
 under the authority of a capuchin convent, or the intrigues of the inqui-
 sition ; for even there we could relieve ourselves by hypocrisy and du-
plicity; means,  which we, as physicians, absolutely reprove.  Expose,
 also, by well authenticated facts, the arts of  secret associations for me-
dical sectarianism, by selected medical caucuses,  with every departure from
medical courtesy, policy, and ethics.
  " Under such  principles and rules, we doubt  not but you will meet
with encouragement and success, not only by our feeble help, but perhaps
 from that of many more who are better able to observe and select the
materials and means of elevating the medical  character of the proud and
populous  city of New-York.
        " With friendly feelings, and esteem, &c.

                                      " Samuel L. Mitchill.
                                      "  Felix Pascalis.
                                      "Samuel Osborn."

   It will also appear, in  an extra, of which I acknowledge
myself to be the author, addressed to the volunteer contributors
of the American Lancet, written and printed in Auburn, Cay-
uga county, and submitted to the examination of two of the
contributors in  that place, Drs. Smith and  Pitney,  that no
satirical  motive against  individuals,  was  designed by me;
but, on  the contrary, that the  general  interest  of the  medical
profession be made the whole object of its editor and proprietor:
see Extra, page 195.
   The Court  said,  it would perhaps tend to shorten the open-
ing, by  considering that there were but two things necessary
to rebut: first, the charge made,  that the publication was libel-
lous, within the meaning  of the  law; and  next,  that  the de-
 fendants are th) authors of it. 
LIBEL SUIT.
19
   Dr. Vought proceeded with his address to the jury, and the
court permitted him to continue.

                  " Auburn, Cayuga County, September 25, 1830.
  " To the following gentlemen, Who have volunteered their services aa
contributors to the American Lancet, late New-York Medical Inquirer,
viz :
  " City and County of New-York—Samuel L. Mitchill, Felix Pascalis,
Samuel  Osborn, William James Macneven, Valentine Mott,  D. M.
Reese, J. F. Schroeder, Samuel Akerly, M. Hoit, C. A. Lee,  James
Hart, William Anderson, G. E. Harrol, C. C. Yates, Z. H. Harris, J.
G. Vought, William Grayson, James M.  Pendleton, B. Ober.
  " County of Albany—Z. W. Lay, A. March.
  "County of Oneida—Alexander Coventry, John McCall, P. P.  Batch-
eldor, Thomas Goodsell, J. N. Meacham.
  '' County  of Cayuga—J. H. Smith, Joseph Cole,  Joseph Pitney,  Ira
Doty, Curtis C. Cady, C. Waldo.
  " County  of Seneca—Caleb Loring, G. L. Rose, S. V. R. Bogart,
Daniel Hudson.
  " County  of Ontario—William Frisbie, Ralph Wilcox.
  " County  of Wayne—J. B. Pierce, N. Peck, Levi  Gaylord.
  " County  of Livingston—E. P. Metcalf, E. Hills, S. Daniels.
  " County  of Genesee—H. H. Webster, T. H.  Woodruff, S. O. Almy,
A. Wilcox, A. R. Butler.
  " County  of Erie—J. Trowbridge, John E.  Marshall, Aaron  Long,
Orlando Wakelee, L. & P. P. Spalding, C. Chapin.
  " County  of Otsego—Benoni H. Marks.
  " County  of Monroe—J. B. Elwood, Gideon Tabor.
  " County of Niagara—John S. Shuler, J. R. Skinner, H. Maxwell.
  " County of Tompkins—C. P.  Heermans.
  " County of Onondaga—Richard R. Davis, A. S. Ball.
  " County of Greene—E. Pierce.
  " County of Chautauque—Vine Elderkin.
  " County  of Yates—Lewis A. Birdsall.
  " County  of Madison—John Payne, Stillman Spooner.
  " Boston, Mass.—John C. Warren.
  " Philadelphia, Pa.—John Eberle.
  " Monmouth, JV. Jersey—J. B. Throckmorton.
  " Cincinnati, Ohio—Joseph W. Hageman.
  " New-Haven, Conn.—William Tully.
  " West Indies—William Stevens. 
20
LIBEL SUIT.
   "These observations are respectfully addressed, and also to those
 gentlemen in different parts of the United States, who will hereafter
 unite with the above-named members of the medical profession.  Among
 you, gentlemen, are  our aged, experienced, enlightened, and liberal
 brethren, wholly independent of the medical quarrels and animosities
 which have existed between the two medical colleges in New-York.
 You are among those  of our profession who know not what it is to stray
 from the path of rectitude  by  rewards and promises," &c.  (See the
 Extra, page 195.)

   The  Court said, it is quite immaterial whether they were
 but two, or were fifty editors,  however respectable the charac-
 ter of each might be; and with regard to the absence of Dr.
 Vought, it made no difference in the case; the absence of an
 editor does not  alter the case : he  had only to  sail over to
 Brooklyn when a libel was about to be  published in his paper.
   Dr. Vought proceeded, and said he was in Canada, and not
 in the United  States.
   And  again in the same extra, pages 197 and 200, which was
 read.
   I have yet another reason to advance, if the court please, why
I haye individually, and with my own private means, commen-
ced and continued the publication called the American Lancet,
late Medical Inquirer; which reason may become a circumstan-
tial if not a positive evidence, that some of the gentlemen who
have arraigned me before  this tribunal, have done so from
malicious motives,  to satisfy  an old grudge, and to wholly
ruin me in the  estimation of the public.   If malice is the ques-
tion, the balance is  much in my  favour.
   In 1825, I came  to this city, almost a perfect stranger, and
commenced the practice of my profession, in a quiet, unobtru-
sive  manner, with  a determination  not to interfere with the
medical quarrels in  this city.  After one or two years, I began
to do a  little business to support myself and family in a humble
station.   I then applied to the Medical Society of this city and
county, (after filing my diploma, according to law,) for mem-
bership, which was  refused,  for reasons unknown  to me.   In 
LIBEL  SUIT.
21
January  1828, I sent for the then President of the Medical
Society, to consult with me, on the case of a patient which I
had attended, for five or six days.  He came to see the patient,
but instead of consulting with me, refused to see me, and pre-
scribed for the patient himself.
   Considering this so gross a breach of medical ethics, I asked
of him, by letter, the reasons for his conduct, whose answer only
added insult to injury.  I then again threw my documents before
the Medical Society, to claim membership and redress, which
were again refused.  My documents were concealed as often as
I presented them, and when I personally appeared, to claim my
right as a citizen,  I  was ordered out of the society,  and de-
prived the liberty of making my own defence.
   It was  then necessary to give the public a statement of my
situation, which I did, in a paper called " Exposure of Facts,"
and which mentions the names of some of my complainants.
I must beg the favour to read a portion of this document, page 1.
Then In n letter to Dr.  Cock, President of the Medical Soci-
ety, after stating to him the reasons why I was  rejected, I pro-
ceeded as follows,  page 3.   (For the foregoing, see Appendix
[A] in this pamphlet.)
   The District Attorney objected to this proceeding, ^A  the
court overruled this  reading.
   Dr. Vought continued with an extempore address to the jury.
   He then turned to that portion of the Lancet which is com-
plained of, as so great a grievance to the gentlemen who were
supposed to belong to a certain secret medical association in
this city, which is a communication in No. VIII. pages 193
and 194.
   The whole of the article is not in the bill, which alters  the
face of it.  I would be glad to  learn who are the divers others.
   The District Attorney said it was an unmeaning expression.
   Dr. Vought said, there was no unmeaning expression in the
Lancet,  and he hoped there would be none in the bill that had
arraigned him before this court. 
22
LIBEL SUIT.
   The following is the passage omitted:

  '• But I am more particularly opposed to this society from the injury
which the medical college in Barclay-street may sustain.   A ieport is
prevalent that the president, trustees, and professors of that college are
among its members.  This report, whether true or false, has the effect
to organize an opposition to that college, which  will result in  sending
pupils to other colleges, and withholding from  that the  patronage and
support necessary for its existence."

   Before I proceed to act upon this  portion of the  Lancet,
which is charged to be libellous, I will  point out a portion of
the work, since  this publication, for the consideration of the
jury, which may  lead  to  prove, that in any case, where  we
have been misinformed,  we are willing to  make both an  ac-
knowledgment and also an amendment for our  indiscretions.
This has been offered  to the gentlemen, who, it is  said, think
themselves wrongfully injured by the Lancet.  They, however,
have not called  on me, nor  do I  know they have upo" any
other  person  concerned in the  Lancet, for rpHr^ss.   If they
had done so, their request might havP been received with at-
tention :  see No. XI. page 269, which says :

  ««wow we beg explicitly to state and be understood, that nothing is
more foreign to our views and policy, than to attach blame or implicate
any man contrary to his merits  and  conduct, and without the fear  of
grand jurors, while we are conscious of seeking the interest of the com-
munity.  We say, that the  gentleman  may have an opportunity by us,
to come forward and declare his disconnexion, or his never having been
one of such a body, upon the condition, however, that he informs us  of
all he  knows about said society, we will then exonerate  him from the
charge, and promise to bring him off with honour."

   And also my  displeasure about the insertion  of other com-
munications,  during my absence :  see page 271 :

   " During my absence from the city, some communications, addressed
to the editors of this work, have been admitted in its columns, which ara
eaid to exhibit private enmity against individuals in this city;  though I 
LIBEL SUIT.
23
attach no blame to those contributors, who were friendly enough to offer
their opinion, on admitting articles of doubtful propriety.
  " All who write for the American Lancet, are to understand, that their
private animosities are not to be vented under fictitious names in the
pages of this work, so long as one who is concerned in publishing it,
labours solely for the general interest of the medical profession.  The
American Lancet was never by me designed to  record slander, or be
made a tool for those who dare not meet their  adversaries, (either pro-
fessional or otherwise) face to face."

   As a further evidence that a secret medical association ex-
isted in this country, and  its branches  are  spread  in other
places, and in this city, which admits of just grounds to  expose
the same, see a printed document from Philadelphia, addressed
to the editor of the New-York Medical aud Physical Journal,
January 29th,  1830, of which  the  following  is an extract.
(See Appendix [B] of this  pamphlet.)
   The District Attorney objected to its  being read, and \va»
sustained by the  court.
   Dr. Vought continued.
   I  ask for nothing but justice, and trust that this jury of my
country, in this land of liberty, will grant my request.  I rest
my cause upon my innocence, and upon the facts that I shall
prove.
   Dr. Vought closed here.
   Dr. Cox was called up and  sworn.   He was asked whether
he had heard  of  the existence  of  a secret society of physicians
in this city ; the District Attorney objected to this question.
   Mr. Maxwell replied ;  he said,  if the  defendants had made
the statements complained of in good faith ; if they had reason
to believe that a secret society  was in existence ;  they were jus-
tified in making the statement, with a view of eliciting the facts
connected  with the belief.   In support of this view of the  case
he cited the case of Delano versus Jones, 1st Russell on Crime,
page 335,  and 4  Espinass, 191.   In this case it was holden,
that  as the libel was published in good  faith, with a  view of
eliciting information relative to the charge made, that therefore 
24
LIBEL  SUIT.
no prosecution could be supported.   Where,  said the gentle-
man, is the difference ?  Here we have two respectable medi-
cal gentlemen who had reason to believe that a secret society
existed in this city—an association of a character which pre-
sented  obstacles to the advancement of all persons not within
its circle—meeting and opposing them at every point with all
that efficiency which  unity of design  and organization confer-
red on them.  The  defendants believing  these things,  make
the inquiry, for if your Honor examines the phraseology of the
article complained of, you will perceive that it is not expressly
said that the  society  did exist, but merely asked for informa-
tion on the subject.   And if they have made a mistake in giv-
ing the names of persons who were not members, I  trust they
are not for this act to be tried under criminal law.   I now con-
tend, if it please the  court, that I have a right to put the ques-
tion to Dr. Cox, with a view  of showing that it was generally
believed  that there was such a society in existence.   The de-
fendants  were materially interested in ascertaining the truth or
falsity of the existence of such a  society,  and  surely this in
itself fully justified them in offering this testimony.
  ,The District Attorney said his objections were two-fold,
even if your Honours, said he,  had  not decided against the
admission of this testimony.   What could be asked the witness
whom  they have called ?  He could only give them reports,
which were, perhaps, industriously circulated, and these surely
could not be  testimony. But your Honours have decided, that
no evidence could be received  unless the connection of Drs.
Beck and Ludlow with this association could be shown.  There
is no analogy between this and the case quoted by the opposite
counsel; in that, there was no assertion made  that the party
had been guilty of bigamy,  but a mere seeking for evidence
on the subject.  It  is  notorious that a gang  called the Forty
Thieves  were organized  in  this city, and if  an  editor had
thought  proper to publish my name  and that of his Honour
the Recorder as  members of the band, when we could show 
LIBEL SUIT.
25
 we were not members, would not that, I ask, be libellous as
 regarded us ?   The Court decided with the District Attorney.
    Dr. Cox  recalled and  examined.   Knows Dr. Anderson  -
 knows him as a respectable physician ; a society of the nature
 described, the witness would consider injurious to  him in the
 way of his profession ; if  aware of the existence of such a so-
 ciety, he would feel himself bound to  expose it.  Mr. Maxwel!
 here said, that though  he was precluded from introducing po-
 sitive proof  on  the subject, it should be taken for granted from
 all that appeared, that such a society  did exist.   The examina-
 tion resumed—He would consider it meritorious in the editors
 of the Lancet to expose such a society.  In reply to the Dis-
 trict Attorney, he said  he was not a member, and if his name
 was given as one, he would consider  it as a libel.
   Mr. Maxwell—Did you speak lately to any of the members
 of this society ?
   D. Attorney—I object to this.
   Mr. M.—How many members are there f
   D. A.—I  object to this.
   Mr. M.—Do  you know such a society exists ?
   D. A.—I object to all such questions.   Surely the gentle-
 man knows that this is not the usual course of professional
 procedure.
   Mr. Maxwell  sat down and  called Dr. Beck—examined.
 Witness feels injured at being named as a  member;  a society
 of this nature would be highly injurious to young men in the
 profession who were not members of it;  by Mr. Maxwell—Do
 you believe that such a society did exist ? The  District Attor-
 ney  objects to this.   Mr. M. contended  that as a cross-exami-
 nation he had a right to put the question.   The District At-
 torney replied that this was new matter, and therefore  was not
 within the line  of cross-examination.   Mr.  Livingston con-
tended it was not new matter; it  was  but  following up that
question put on the first day by the District Attorney, that i?,
" Are you a member of this society?"
                            3 
26
LIBEL SUIT.
   The Court decided with the District  Attorney,  and Mr.
Maxwell excepted to the decision.
   Mr. Maxwell.  Did you ever declare you believed that such
a society existed in this city ?  The District Attorney objected
to this.  Mr. M.  contended that he had a right to put the ques-
tion with a view of testing the veracity of the witness, as  on
the former examination he said he did not helieve such a  so-
ciety existed—the witness  explained the  answer he gave;  he
said that his reply was, that he did not believe a society of the
precise nature described did exist in the city.
   The Court decided that Mr. Maxwell might put the question.
   Mr. M. put the question thus—" Have you ever said that a
secret  society existed in this city,  which  was extremely perni-
cious to the interests of such physicians as were not members
of it ?"
   The Court decided that this question was too general.
   Mr. Maxwell excepted.
   Witness knows Doctor Manley, and has the utmost confi-
dence in him; would not however surrender his own belief to
that of Dr. Manley;  witness and Dr. Manley had several con-
versations relative to the existence of a secret society;  " Did
you ever furnish  a list of names to  Dr. Manley, as those  of
members of a secret  society ?"   " Do you  mean a  written
list ?"  "  Either."   The witness hesitated, and  Mr. Maxwell
repeated the question.  The witness said, it was matter of ge-
neral conversation  amongst the physicians of the city that a
society did exist; witness did mention the names of  several
persons whom he  believed members;  did not know of his own
knowledge that these persons were  members; the opinion
given  to Dr.  Manley of this society,  and the  opinion which
witness holds of all secret  societies are, that persons who are
united are supposed to  have a community of interests, and
when this union is a secret one, they may be  supposed to [be
able to effect it with more certainty, as the persons likely to be
obstacles to their views are not likely  to be aware of their de- 
                        LIBEL SUIT.                    27

 signs; witness does not know whether he gave the names of
 the persons with a view of reflecting credit or discredit on
 them ;  does not know that he gave the names as those of per-
 sons obnoxious ; may have expressed a belief  that such a so-
 ciety had the effect of forwarding the private interests of the
 members of it, in opposition to those of persons not members ;
 believes that if such a secret society exists, it ought to be bro-
 ken up ;  has complained in general terms that all secret socie-
 ties have an injurious effect;  believes, in fact, knows,  that a
 secret society has been in existence.
   Dr. Ludlow examined.   Does  not know that he has been
 proposed as a member, nor that he has been rejected. By Mr.
 Maxwell—Did Dr. Stevens ever tell you  that you were pro-
 posed as a  member ?  the District Attorney objected to this.
 Witness saw the libel  about the time it was published ; never
 went to the editors  to  have the mistake  relative to his name
 corrected; went to the grand jury and there complained, his
 motive for  this was to protect himself;  he thought that the
 libel, if believed, was likely to injure him in his practice as a
 physician ; knows Dr.  Anderson to be a gentleman of respec-
 tability in his profession,  and does  not believe he had any ma-
 lice towards witness ;  the witness  made the same replies with
 regard to Dr.  Vought.
   Dr. Beck recalled.  Believes that Dr. Vought had no ma-
 lice against him ; it is  possible that Dr. Anderson may have
 had some ill-feeling towards witness ; his reason for believing
 this is, that he criticized two works written by  Dr.  Anderson,
 in consequence of this  a coolness ensued, but they had been on
 good terms since, but recently witness said he heard that Dr.
 Anderson had made use of expressions against witness.  [Dr.
 Anderson here mentioned through  Mr. Maxwell, that he had
 not made use of the expressions charged.]
   Dr. Stearns examined. Quest.—Do you know who is the au-
thor of the communication ?  The witness paused, and asked the
Court whether he was obliged to answer this. The Court said, 
28
LIBEL SUIT.
No, if it criminates yourself.  Declines answering ; it is not
written  in  Dr. Anderson's hand writing or Dr. Vought's;
knows Dr. Anderson as a  gentleman of respectability in his
profession as a  surgeon; knows Dr. Vought also as a  res-
pectable professional gentleman.
  The defence having rested here, Mr. Livingston said, before
this case goes to the jury I wish it known to the community,
that we are here prepared to prove all that we have alleged in
the libel; that  there are near two  hundred  witnesses in the
court to this point.
  The District Attorney  said, that he thought it improper to
make such a statement before a jury after the decision of the
court ;  he could, if he chose, make an opposite statement; he
could assert, that if the rules of this association could be laid
before this jury, they would perceive that it  is formed for the
most useful and scientific  purposes.
  Mr. Maxwell  rose to address  the  jury.  He dwelt at some
length on the importance of the  case ; he was satisfied, he said,
that his clients might with safety entrust the case to an inde-
pendent jury, against the combination of a body of physicians,
or any other powerful body of  individuals.  Although not en-
gaged for Dr. Vought, he has now done me the honour to con-
fide the summing up of his case to me. I shall now present the
case of Dr. V. as being equally meritorious with that of Dr. An-
derson.  Both of these gentlemen ought to be acquitted: both
ought to be justified by a jury of their country, as  they stand
already justified by the good  sense  and candour  of a great
majority of the most respectable men of the profession.
  This  is not the first time attempts have been made to intimi-
date public  spirited men from  a discharge of solemn duty.
History furnishes shocking instances  of the abuse of the cri-
minal law by powerful combinations of the ambitious or prof-
ligate to suppress the truth, or punish those who dared to pub-
lish and assert  it. ^  The time  was even  in this free country>
when a man found no  protection in the publication of the 
LIBEL SUIT.
29
truth, though it unmasked the treason or profligacy of public
servants, or branded the violator of private life, however pure
the motive—however justifiable  the  end of  publication.   I
thought that ungracious time had passed away—that the sta-
tute-book had demolished so foul  a foe to  freedom and free
discussion.
   We come into this court with a desire to  prove the truth—
the existence of a secret society, whose objects we believed to
be pernicious—whose influence was unseen,  unknown, and yet
felt, feared, and deprecated by the profession.
   We were prevented from proving the truth of the matters
alleged to be  libellous, wicked,  and false.   This decision of
the Court I protest against as being contrary to constitutional
principles.  The fact of Drs. Beck  and Ludlow  not being
members is  admitted; but this fact is a mere incident, and  col-
lateral to the grand and controlling ground of defence, that a
secret combination existed amongst physicians, which the de-
fendants  promulgated  to the world, and which, having the
control of a free press they were  bound to  do.   [Here Mr.
Maxwell argued that the matters excluded were essential to the
defence.]
   But we have been able to lay enough before you to enable
you to draw your own conclusions.  I must  ask you, gentle-
men, to give your calm and deliberate consideration of the facts
and all the circumstances which  have  been  laid before you,
and to the law as  applicable to  the case ; you are the  sole
judges in this case of the law and the fact.  You are not
entirely  to  disregard the opinion of the Court, whose know-
ledge of criminal law and humanity in its  administration are
well  known;  but you are  the  sole judges, both of the law
and the fact; you alone are responsible to the people for the
verdict to be returned.
   Gentlemen, the first point for consideration is, whether there
is proof of the publication.   Admitting this to be a libel, ad-
mitting it to be false and malicious, yet there is no evidence
                           3* 
 30                     LIBEL SUIT.

that Dr. Anderson was accessory to  its publication.  It is in
evidence that Dr. Vought was absent from the city when the
publication was made and until after it had been made, and here
you have before you  the true authors, the printers and the pub-
lishers of it.   The allegation is, that the defendants  caused
this matter to be written, printed, and published; now I ask
you, is there  any evidence that they caused  it to be written,
printed, or published ? So far from this, it is before you that nei-
ther of them knew anything about ituntil after it had appeared
in print. It is proved by Dr. Stearns, that the  original was not
written by Dr. Anderson—it is proved that the list of names
was furnished by Dr.  Osborn.   Dr. Anderson it is proved, had
no  control over the publication; he  was in the establishment
merely as an assistant editor.   Now as to  the printing,  he had
no control over it.  Dr. Vought with whom Mr. Seymour had
made the contract for printing,  and  whom  Mr. S. considered
himself responsible to, was absent from the city.  But besides
you have it in proof  before you, that Drs. Pascalis and Os-
born had the sole power of inserting or rejecting communica-
tions.  It has been sworn before you, that Dr. Anderson had
no volition on the subject of inserting the  communication in
question :  so with respect to the printing and writing, he is
completely exonerated.   Now as to the publication, have you
the slightest proof that he ever distributed a single copy ? No
—the only proof relied  on is, that he was  an assistant editor.
He had no control either as to the writer, or printer.
  As to Doctor Vought, I  admit  that an editor is  liable
for any thing which  appears  in his paper,  if he  has the
control of it; but here the general rule cannot be applied, as
it has been shown that Dr. Vought was absent, and it has been
shown that during his absence his character as  editor  was su-
perseded.  Is it not  monstrous then, that you should hold him
responsible—he  who had never seen the article until  after  it
had appeared in print, and who had  surrendered his authority
before its appearance to  persons who are before you, and who 
LIBEL SUIT.
31
are amenable to their country if aught there is in the allega*
tions for which they ought to be  held responsible.  [To show
the necessity of strict proof in  case  of libel, Mr.  Maxwell
cited the case of Harding versus Greening from Espinasse's
Reports.]  Now in this case, he asked, is it not much strong-
er?  Dr. Anderson had no control over this  publication in
the absence of Dr. Vought; and the latter, in surrendering his
authority as editor, did not give  to Drs. Osborn  and Pascalis
any authority to publish a libel against Drs. Beck and Ludlow.
   But the second ground of defence is, that the publication is
not defamatory.   If read and construed fairly, there is nothing
in it which brings  it within the definition of a defamatory libel.
With regard to one branch of the case I must put you  on your
cuard.   If an injury has been done  to  Drs. Beck and Lud-
low, it can only be  in  reference to them as  private citizens.
The indictment does not  contain any colloquium.   It is not
charged that it was published of them as physicians—it con-
tains nothing which charges that the publication has injured
them as in their profession  as physicians: now if you believe
that there is nothing defamatory in the publication as  regards
their private capacity, the defendants must be acquitted. With
regard to this you  may take their own opinions.
   In the opinions  of some honourable gentlemen, some things
in this secret society are perfectly right and proper, while in
the  minds of  other  persons equally  honourable,  the  same
things are  deemed  improper  and pernicious.  Among the
names of gentlemen  given  here as  members  of this  associa-
tion, are to be found those of Dr. John A. Smith, Dr. Stevens,
and several other gentlemen, who would never belong to any
society they thought unworthy.   You  find many highly re-
spectable men, who think there is nothing wrong in belonging
to a secret society; while on the other side, you have respect-
able men who think it wrong to belong to any society which
is secret in its nature.   It is a mere matter of  opinion.  Now
a matter of opinion, which this evidently is, and expressed to 
32
LIBEL SUIT.
be in the publication, is not a fit subject for a criminal pro-
secution.   On the face of the publication I deny that there is
any thing more than an expression of opinion, or a suppos
state of facts; they merely state that a secret society did exist:
there is no  assertion that the members  had fraudulently asso-
ciated, or had associated for unlawful purposes, the tendency
of the  society is reprobated.   In support of the argument
that the  statement of a fact, and the drawing  an erroneous
opinion from it, is not a subject for criminal prosecution,  the
gentleman  cited  the case of Van Rensselaer versus Dole from
1st Johnson's cases.   The counsel on the other side will ask,
are men to  be thus held up to the public as conspiring against
the common good : I answer with the judge in the case I have
just cited, that the mere expression of an  opinion where the
true  grounds of  that  opinion  are given, is not punishable as
a  libel.  (Here  Mr. Maxwell illustrated his argument.)   My
clients expressed their opinions, giving at the  same time the
facts upon which  they founded it,   so that every individual
might judge for  himself; my clients had a right to express an
honest opinion, when they laid the  truth  before  the  public.
They were bound as faithful watchmen, to  give  information
to the profession, that  such a  society did  exist—and to warn
them that there was danger to be apprehended.  If any of us
were aware that  some members of any particular profession
had instituted a secret society from which some of  the mem-
bers of that profession were excluded, would we not naturally
infer that there was something objectionable, from the fact of
secrecy being imposed ; and if such an opinion was publicly
expressed with good motives, ought the writers to be subjected
to a criminal prosecution ?   (In support of this argument the
gentleman  here  cited several  authorities.)  Now gentlemen,
continued  he, is  there any thing in the alleged libel, save a
charge that the  members  of the association were unsocial,
that they did not choose to mingle with  all the members of
the profession to which they belonged ?  There is no  more in 
LIBEL SUIT-
33
the alleged libel than an assertion that some individuals were
associated for the purpose of advancing  their own interests ;
a matter in which some persons think them  right, and some
wrong.  Another ground upon which I rely for the acquittal
of the defendants is, that there was no malice, that the  names
of Drs. Beck and  Ludlow were given by mistake, under  an
impression that they  were  members. It is shown to you
that my clients had.no malice towards Drs. Beck and Ludlow.
Before you can convict them you must make  a return on your
oath, that these two  names were in the  words of the indict-
ment,  wickedly and maliciously published.   Two things  the
jury have to  find, before they can  render a  verdict of  guilty
against my clients—they must first find that the publication is
false, and then, that it is malicious ; because the mere fact that
a statement is false, is not sufficient;  the ingredient of malice
must also be  proved.  I will now  ask if  every step  taken by
these men does not prove that their intentions were pure ? they
exhibit no bias in  favour of either  medical college, but are
entirely independent.  They opened their columns  to essays on
all scientific and medical subjects ;  and to all matters likely to
benefit the profession to which they belonged.  Only a few weeks
before the publication of the article complained of, you see in
the same work a high, and I am sure a deserved eulogium on
Dr.  Beck, against whom we  are here charged with  holding
malice.  In Dr. Vought, is to be seen an instance  of a man so
entirely devoted to  the interest of the object in which he is  en-
gaged as to have been induced even to dispose of his horse and
carriage, to enable  him the better to support the work—to aid
his younger brethren in overcoming the obstacles which present
themselves before young men in entering  the profession. Drs.
Beck and Ludlow  themselves testify, that Dr. Vought had no
malice towards them ; with respect to Dr. Anderson  you have
to be sure, heard from Dr. Beck that he  had heard some idle
 stories :  I have no doubt tale bearers did go between them,
 but my client, who is a young man who holds a very high rank 
34
LIBEL SUIT.
in his profession, disclaims having used  the words imputed to
him.  [The gentleman here proceeded to give a rapid view of
the  principal parts of the evidence, to show that there was no
malice.]   To  prove further said he in continuation, that the
publication was made in good faith  and without malice, you
have only to recollect, that  both my clients  are members of
the  medical profession, and  therefore deeply interested in the
truth or falsehood of the reports, that the society did exist.
  Mr. Maxwell examined  at length the  law of libel, and the
principles applicable to this  case.
  Could these gentlemen have a better mode of ascertaining
the  truth or falsity of the reports in circulation, than by thus
publishing them, and thereby giving  to the parties  named  an
opportunity of setting the public right ?   You see, gentlemen.
that in a succeeding number, the editors  avow their  wish to
publish any  correction of the statement which might  be fur-
nished to them.
  Now, gentlemen, I will request your attention for a few mo-
ments longer.   The law requires not only that a publication
shall be false, but it must have the additional character of ma-
lice to bring it within  the definition of libel.   In proof of this
opinion, I will read you the opinion of an able lawyer,  ex-
pressed  by  him in defending the rights  of the press.   [The
gentlemen here read from  3 Johnson's Cases, page 354.] And
now,  gentlemen,  I will give  you the opinion of  one of  the
sages of the law, that you may see how  far it coincides with
that of General Hamilton.  [He here read  from  2  Kent's
Commentaries 12, and the case of Broke versus Bolingbroke,
quoted in a note, page  .]  This, continued  the gentleman,
is not only the established  opinion in this state, but  also in
other states.  [Here he cited the  opinion  of Chief Justice
Parsons, of Massachusetts, in  the case of the Commonwealth
versus Clapp.]  The same also holds in the State of Pennsyl-
vania, as will be seen in 2 Binne, page 517, Brackenbridge,
justice, in the  Court of Errors.   All these conclusively show, 
LIBEL SUIT.
35
that the malice, not the falsity or mistake, connected with the
publication is that which constitutes the libel.  But in addition
to all these authorities, I will read you a recent opinion given
in our own state, one which  has become embodied in the law
of the land ; a law to restrain which would fix a shackle on the
people more galling, and  more destructive to their liberties
than any other which could be placed on them.   [The gen-
tleman here read  the decision of Chief Justice Savage in
the Supreme  Court, in  the case  of Root versus  King, 7th
Cowen, and of Chancellor Walworth in 'the same case,  4th
Wendall.]   There is another case to which I will refer you ;
it is that of the People versus Coleman, the  editor of the Eve-
ning Post, to be found in the City-hall Recorder.   Here the
editor  charged  a citizen  with  kidnapping, an action  was
brought, and the defendant relied for his defence on the fact
that he had reason to believe the facts were, as he stated, and
the Mayor decided that the defence was good.   It is given in
evidence, my clients  have avowed, and I now avow, that we
have no possible malice against any member of the medical
profession ; and can  it be possible that any arguments  to be
used by my learned friend, the District  Attorney, whose emi-
nent talents I so well know, can induce you to believe we had
malice ?   Can you  believe that  two gentlemen, holding the
rank they do hold in the medical profession, could be induced
to become the base libellers you must believe they are, before
you convict them ?   Surely not, so well satisfied am I that such
a result cannot follow, that I leave the case before you with the
greatest confidence in your discrimination  and  independence
of mind.
   The District Attorney, Mr. Hoffman, addressed the jury in
a fluent and eloquent style.   He said,  he would not keep the
floor as long as Mr. Maxwell had, to tire their patience, not-
withstanding he spoke for near an hour.  He would convince
them, by  the  testimony given, that the defendants were guilty
of libellous conduct  in the Lancet, as respects his clients, Drs. 
36
LIBEL  SUIT.
 Beck and  Ludlow, who were gentlemen of high standing in
 their profession, and who had sustained injury in consequence
 of being mentioned in the Lancet as two out of the seventeen
 charged as being members of a secret medical association.  He
 quoted the different law cases which Mr. Maxwell had advanced
 to convince the jury that malice was necessary to be proved, to
 convict a criminal for a libel,  and argued that those cases were
 unlike the present case under consideration, and that it was not
 necessary to  give direct proof of malice  to convict the defend-
 ants in this case.
   He said he respected the opinion of this court  as much as
 any  other, and hoped the jury would do so also in relation to
 the charge this would receive from it.   I was aware, said he,
 of the natural tendency which the case  would take by trying
 the defendants separately; that the  one  might turn round and
 testify for the other:  and no  sooner did  Dr. Osborn  become
 acquitted, than he gave his testimony promptly in favour  of
 the other two.
   As to Dr. Vought, his being  disappointed in his counsel to
 aid him, has  caused me  to give  him more  scope than I ever
 have an individual before, on  law points, in a case of this na-
 ture: he has had great latitude granted him by the court, which
 may have  operated in  his favour.   The District  Attorney
spoke at great length on this point, and finally said, Doctor
Vought has read copiously in  the Lancet to convince the jurv
that it was an independent work, and that Dr. Beck's  interest
was as much considered as that of many others ; and  a certain
portion of it Dr. Vought read to the credit of Dr.  Beck ; not-
withstanding  Dr.  Beck's testimony proves that the whole drift
of the Lancet is contrary to his interest and against the interest
of the college  to which he belongs.  Therefore,  I will now
read a few lines in the Lancet, which may alter  your opinion
as respects  its partiality.  (See the American Lancet, p. 150.)
  Dr. Vought rose and said, if the court please,  I  object to
the District Attorney's reading any portion of the Lancet that 
                       LIBEL  SUIT.                     37

  did not read in my opening, unless he will allow me to argue
on the portion that he wishes to read.
  The District Attorney said he had  allowed Dr. Vought tc
read at great length what he pleased, and thought it unfair that
Dr. V. should deprive him of reading one or two lines.
  Dr.  Vought said, if your Honour will allow me to argue on
the points he wishes to read, and give me a chance to rebut the
impression they may  make on the minds of the jury,  he may
read the whole Lancet if he please, with all my heart;  but on
any other ground, I  object to his reading.
  The District Attorney laid down the book.  He soon after
closed  his speech by saying, that the jury must, according to
their duty and  the oaths they had taken, find the  defendants
guilty  of a libel.   It is left to the court to impose the penalty.
  [For what the District  Attorney  wanted to read,  see
Appendix [C]  in this  work, consisting of six queries, which
no gentleman, either in the Barclay-street College, or in the
Medical Society, have as yet thought proper to answer.  We
are willing these queries should be read and  answered to the
full satisfaction of the seventeen alluded to in the Lancet.]
  The Recorder, in  his charge to the jury, gave a lucid and
interesting exposition of the law of libel.   He considered the
subject from the earliest period, and traced the times and causes
which moderated its rigour.  He gave his opinion of the prin-
ciples upon  which  the jury should determine the matter sub-
mitted  to their adjudication :  he held, that if they were of opi-
nion, that the libellous matter was false as regarded Drs.  Beck
and Ludlow, (of which he professed himself to have no doubt)
that it was then their  duty to raise an inference that it was ma-
licious; that the inference of malice must be rebutted by the
defendants; that if the jury believed the defendants had no bad
intention in their hearts towards Beck and Ludlow, or in other
words, had rebutted the inference  of malice towards them, at
the  time of the publication, they were not guilty, and it would
be the  duty  of the jury to acquit them;  but that, if they be-
                           4 
38
LIBEL SUIT.
lieved the defendants had not sufficiently explained the publi-
cation, and rebutted the inference of malice, it would be their
duty  to convict, however painful  and disgraceful such a con-
viction might be to the very respectable defendants.
   The jury retired,  and after an  absence  of something  shor(
of an hour, returned a verdict of not guilty.
INDICTMENT.
 City and County of Ntto- York, ss :

       The jurorg of the people of the State of New-York and for the body of the City and
County of New-York, upon their oath present, That John G. Vought, late of the first ward of
the City of New-York, in the County of New-York aforesaid, Physician, William Anderson,
late of the same place, Physician, and Samuel  Osborn, late of the  same place, Physician,
being the editors and proprietors  of a certain pamphlet entitled "The American Lancet,"
and being malicious and evil-disposed persons, and wickedly  and  maliciously contriving
and intending one Edward G. Ludlow, of the said city, Physician, and John B. Beck, of the
said city, Physician, and divers other persons, to detract, scandalize,  and vilify, on the
fifteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty, at
the ward, city and county aforesaid, with force and arms, wickedly and maliciously did
write, print and publish, and cause and procure to be written, printed and published, in the
said pamphlet, entitled "The American Lancet," a certain false, scandalous, and defama-
tory libel, (purporting to be a communication to the editors of tbe American Lancet) of and
concerning the said Edward G. Ludlow and John B. Beck, and divers others, and containing
the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory words and matter following, that is to say :
" Communication," &c (see page 3.) 
APPENDIX.
                               [A]

     " To the Editor of the ' N. Y. Medical and Physical Journal.'

  '•  The last No. of the ' North American Medical and Surgical Journal,
published in this city, ' under the auspices of the Kappa Lambda Society
of the United States,' contains an ' article,' entitled  ' Medical Politics,"
comprising both an angry philippic against you, for  having ventured to
notice, without anathemas, a pamphlet entitled ' A report of the trial of
an action for libel, in which Dr. George M'Clellan was plaintiff,1 Sec.—
and  also a furious diatribe against the offending pamphlet and  its ' re-
porter.'
  " The incoherence of this ' article,'—the absence  of all specification
in its charges,—and the manifest heat in which it has been written,—
ought to convince all observers that it has been prompted by such ex-
.■..'hkivc irritation as couia r.« caused only  by  the touch of unwelcome
truth.
  ■' The alleged misrepresentation must be in the following passage, viz :
  " « This society publishes a journal or  medical review, purporting on
the face of it to be fair and impartial.   For a considerable time after the
establishment of that journal, it sailed under false colours, bearing the
names of certain respectable men, as individual  editors, while in fact it
was published by the secret-oath society.   The impartiality of a review,
commencing with a display of candour like that, and conducted by fifty
physicians  or  more, bound together by a solemn obligation of mutual
commendation, can be readily appreciated.'
  " Now, every  word of the  above citation, is easily shown to  be true.
(I)  That the society publishes a journal.  To  deprive the editors of the
benefit of a  quibble which would distinguish between the publication of
the journal  ' by,1 and its  publication ' under the auspices of the  associa-
tion, I refer to their' preface to thefourth volume,' in which the editors
disclose the existence of the Kappa Lambda Society, for ' several years'
then past; the branches of which,'established in various parts of the 
40
APPENDIX.
country, acknowledge a mutual connexion;'—and where the same editor*
also declare that  the  ' Philadelphia Kappa  Lambda Society, from its
central position, was entrusted with the publication of a medical journal,'
&c.; and further, that' this journal is the fruit of the authority thus de-
legated,' &c.
  " The North American Medical and Surgical Journal has been, there-
fore, from first to  last, published by the Kappa Lambda Society.
  "(2) Does it not * purport on the face of it to be fair and impartial ?'
It may be presumed that no proof of this allegation is wanted.
  " (3) Did it not for  a considerable time practice some sort of disguise
or concealment, to  which the common  figure  of 'sailing under false col-
ours,' is aptly applied ?  Did it not bear the names  of respectable men
as individual editors,—and was not the society, which in fact published
it, fairly designated a 'secret-oath society?'
  " The journal did then for a considerable time, videlicet, nearly  two
years, carry the flag of Dr. Hodge, &c. as private adventurers merely
and  sole owners ; but the fact is now undeniable  that Dr. Hodge, &c.
were not proprietors, as they publicly claimed to be, nor sole editors or
conductors,  as  they professed;  but agents for proprietors, a committeo
merely, speaking only as they  were ' permitted1 (as they have since
declared) by their principals) whose names and whose qualifications for
the critical judgment seat,  are still undivulged  and unknown to the
public.
  " That the true colours were not hoisted  till October,  1827, seenid
therefore to be indisputable.
  " That the association  is held together by the obligation of an  oath,
was established by the solemn affirmation of one of the same editors, as
mentioned in the  pamphlet, and not denied.  His testimony is positive ;
and his integrity and intelligence unquestioned.
  " That the society is a secret one seems scarcely a subject of doubt;
yet the ' committee for publication,'  in their  recent ebullition, seems to
deny it.
  " The very existence of the  society,—although its ' branches  were
established in various parts of the country'—was entirely concealed until
October, 1829,  when the ' committee' (in the preface to the 4th volume)
made a restricted  disclosure respecting  it.   The  whole amount of the
disclosure is, that the  society had existed, and was extended, as above
cited,—that its founder was Dr. Brown,—that it was intended to be co-
extensive  with the Union,—that its objects are to elevate the character
of the medical vocation, by inculcating a higher standard of excellence
in both the professional and ethical relations and duties of physicians,—-
and that the journal had been established, &c. as above mentioned." 
APPENDIX.
41
    otb.   Fror* <* report of the trial of an action for  libel, published in
  foladelphia in 1329, in which Dr. George M'Clellan wa$ plaintiff, and
  r. Francis S. Beattie was defendant, on the evidence  of Dr. William E.
Horner, (see page 57) as follows:

   " This gentleman is said to be a member, as are also Dr. Ritchie and
Dr. Coats, of an association called the Lambda Kappa  Society. That they
are positively so, cannot be certainly pronounced, because the organiza-
tion of that association is secret, and membership may be  suspected, but
not absolutely known.   This society comprises probably a great deal of
individual respectability,  being  composed of more than fifty, perhaps
seventy, physicians of this town.  Its existence, however, is an oppro-
brium to the medical profession, and its tendencies manifestly evil.  Dr.
Benjamin H. Coates, in the course of an examination, on his solemn
affirmation, in a cause recently tried, was interrogated as to some mat-
ters connected with the character of this association.  He at first de-
clined giving any information; but being reminded  of the compulsion
under which he stood, he let out these characteristic particulars, viz.:
that the association is a secret one, and that the members, on being ad-
mitted,  take an oath or solemn affirmation, binding themselves to mutual.
but secret aid and support.   In what manner they  pass their time at the
meetings of the association, or how their common funds or united efforts
are applied, has not been made known.
  " Surely no honourable  purpose in professional life  can  require the aid
of such  a combination.  Men may find advantage in secret societies, for
personal and gainful ends;  but science, knowledge, virtue, character,
must flourish best in open light. In a profession in which success dependson
talent, education, and industry, concealment of every kind has long been
resigned to quacks, as fitting the degraded means by  which persons thus
denominated, pursue their aims.  In this enlightened age, in this intel-
ligent and virtuous community,—that well educated members of one of
the proudest of all professions, should seek for means  of advancement in
secret associations, and  secret oaths of support—cannot but excite our
special wonder.   The proper course for a physician is easily designated.
To study the science thoroughly, to practise faithfully, to deal  with his
competitors candidly, and  to publish in some form or other whatever ad-
ditions to the common stock  of medical knowledge  he may chance to
acquire,—such is the direct road to eminence, lying  broadly open, and
far preferable to any tortuous or hidden path that shuns the light of day.
It is not difficult for one that sees even the surface of medical politics in
Philadelphia, to discern some of the bad fruits of this disreputable asso-
ciation.   Indeed examples are easily cited.  When the gentleman above
                              4* 
42
APPENDIX.
 named, was compelled to disclose the fact of the secret oath, &c. he ad
 ded that he entertained no sort of respect for any physicians, with very
 few exceptions indeed, who do not  belong to that association!  After-
 wards, having conversed with  his friends, he thought proper to recant
 or explain away this rash expression ; but the  feeling which prompted
 it, and the  source from which that feeling sprung, are too obvious to be
 misunderstood.  Dr. Reynell Coates also, who gave  testimony in this
 case, and was doubtless regarded by the jury  as a perfectly impartial
 witness, said very frankly to a gentleman in the court room, that he was
 the warm  personal enemy of Dr. M'Clellan,  and the warm personal
 friend of Dr.  Beattie.  Now it is believed, that no circumstance can
 account for this enmity, except that Dr. M'Clellan is not a member of
 the Kappa Lambda Society, and falls therefore under the ban denounced
 previously  by Dr. Benjamin H. Coates.  It will be observed that  this
 was no expression of disapprobation, but of enmity,—a sentiment that
 can not have been excited by any thing that has ever occurred in the in-
 tercourse, whether personal or professional, between Dr. M'Clellan and
 Dr. Coates.  Dr. Beattie is a member of the association,  according to
 the statement of Dr. B. H. Coates.
  Two of the pernicious consequences of a secret cabal are thus deve-
 loped—the spirit of  exclusiveness and proscription that condemns or ap-
 proves by the single test of  fellow-membership  in the secret  league, is
 one;  and the animosities, misconstructions, misrepresentations, and false
 estimates of  character that must flow from it,  are  too evident to need
 particular indication; —the  other is the doubt that must hang on all tes-
 timony borne by medical men, whether in a court  of justice or in soci-
ety, if it is all to be tinged  or coloured by hidden  partialities arising
 from concealed associations, and unrevealed obligations resting on secret
 oaths!
  An association of this  kind realizes all that  has been urged or sug-
 gested against masonry, by  its warmest enemies—without the pretence,
 however, of being able to  supply that exercise of charity which is the
 real boast and virtue of the masonic institutions.
  It is said that the Kappa  Lambda  Society has branches elsewhere, or
 perhaps this may be but a  branch whose baleful root is  in some other
 community.  If so, the evil agency  of such an instrument of  mischief
 may be infinitely greater than is generally known.  No professional
 character can be safe against an organized system of dispraise and injus-
 tice.  This society  publish a journal or Medical Review, purporting on
 the face of it to be  fair and impartial.  For a considerable time after
 the establishment of that journal, it sailed under false colours, bearing
 the names  of certain respectable men as individual editors, while in fact 
APPENDIX.
43
it was published by the secret-oath-society.   The impartiality of a Re-
view, commencing with a display of candour like that, and conducted by
fifty or more physicians, bound together by  a solemn obligation of mu-
tual commendation—can be readily appreciated!
  Some gentlemen who became members without knowing the real cha-
racter of the association, have, it is said, declined to attend its meetings,
but they are bound by the unlawful  oaths that were administered to them
there, not to expose the circumstances  which move their honest disap-
probation and disgust.
  The honourable portion of the medical profession, ought to join, not
secretly, but openly, to discountenance  all such hidden contrivances  to
elevate particular individuals above their real merits, or to intercept the
just reward of true excellence.  Mutual support is  due from all good
men to each other, and if candour, liberality, and fair dealing be observed
by the most elevated, the  example will be followed by others, for the
sake of appearance, at least, if not for the love of virtue.  It is unques-
tionably so in the legal profession ;  why cannot it be so in the profession
of medicine ?
                               [B]
           " Exposure of Facts"published February, 1828.

  u Painful as the task is, the necessity of self-defence compels me  to
expose a copy of the following letters for public perusal.  The magna-
nimous and loyal power of the medical Society, combined with the pro-
fessors of the  old college, are fearful odds against one, who is only a
medical man among you, almost pennyless, though not entirely friendless.
I feel myself a man, and as such, have always meant to show myself;
and rather than be duped, misled, or silently suffer myself abused by the
mighty men of my profession, I will sacrifice my health, my life, my all,
in opposition to such measures.   I have appealed to the hon. society for
redress, and as often  as my documents were presented, so often have
they been meanly evaded; not even read before the society, but treated
with silent dignity.  It is true, the former president filled the chair with
dignity ;  but was it not that dignity which many make use of as a cloak
to hide their ignorance and duplicity ?  By some I am met with fawning
treachery, which warns me of the canker in their hearts.   I placed my-
self before the heart of the Medical Society, and found its feelings ada-
mant to  impartial justice.   I now look to another source—the public
heart which I trust is not callous  to the touch of humanity.  May not
the public yet  learn that arbitrary and supreme as our society assumes to 
44
APPENDIX.
 be, it is only a body of trustees, and not the sole owners of medical sci-
 ence?  Fee simple may  be found in the breasts of such  as make im-
 provements in medical science  for the  general good of the community,
 whether they be in or out of the society.

 ••' To Dr.  Thomas  Cock, President of the Medical Society of the
                  City and  County of New- York.
                                              " July 26th, 1828.
  " Dear Sib—Please excuse the liberty I take  in thus addressing you
 on a subject of no personal interest to yourself, further than as it relates
 to the arduous task of fulfilling the duties of the office  you  have aspired
 to, as President of the Medical  Society of the City and County  of New-
 York.  It has been my fortune to be placed in friendly and honourable
 competition with some of the medical profession, justly  enjoying eminent
 degrees, whose wortli and talents I highly respect, and in such associa-
 tion and council I have felt the glory of the medical profession.  It has
 also been my fortune to meet the reverse of the profession, and the for-
 mer president who held the office you now enjoy, is one who has mani-
 fested his wisdom, first by refusing to consult with me in a case where
 he was sent for expressly by my consent and approbation, and secondly,
 by taking the patient on his own hands and prescribing, when I had been
 the attending physician for several days.  This was done in a  most un-
 generous, ignorant, and insulting manner, contrary to all medical ethics;
 and when called on for an explanation, he added insult to injury, by
 plumply and falsely denying the charge.  After such occurrences, his
conduct towards  me in the society, at  the last meeting, may  be easily
accounted for.   It may be thought by many, an improper step in me, to
come  before the society  and claim my right of membership; but I was
actuated by the necessity of self-defence on the occasion, and although I
declare frankly that I meant to advance no dishonourable allusions to the
society, still my  disposition towards the president then presiding, was
not  altogether the most friendly and conciliating, for which I consider I
have  ample reason to proclaim—and as in my views the step was  legal
and honourable, I have no further excuse to offer.  Therefore I consid-
 ered myself a legal member of the society independent of  its members
and officers, and as I observed to the president, I left the society on ac-
count of its being improper to remain while a question was discussing
relative to my own situation, and not because I thought the president or
members had power to deprive me of my seat as alegal  member.  When
my diploma wa3 handed to the  Commitia Minora, about one year ago
they thought proper not to recommend me as a member, and the reasons
 I understood were, that I had opened an infirmary for the cure of diseases 
APPENDIX.
45
of the digestive functions, had an interest  in a patent  recipe, made an
improvement on bathing-tubs for the convenience of families, and pub-
lished a treatise on bowel complaints, in which I have recommended my
improvement in the cure of these complaints, &c. &c. &c, all of which
they say assumes the character of quackery, and shall deprive me from
being a member of the Medical Society.
     Now, dear sir, if an inquiry be made into  the conduct of the profes-
sion generally, I would be glad to learn where the line of quackery (ac-
cording  to the true signification of the  term) shall be drawn.  It is the
object of all who attend to the practice of medicine, at least to make a
livelihood by it; at all events,  I never yet found one  who strictly at-
tended to it merely as a source of pleasure. Is it not evident to every can-
did observer, that all ambitious practitioners do make an effort in various
ways to obtain the confidence of the public ? and on a deliberate investi-
gation of facts, do not  a majority of the profession stoop to the level of
the meanest of their fellow-creatures, by pursuing a  course of (what is
justly termed by some) private quackery?   I  am one who is accused of
open and public quackery, and still I feel myself on a par with (and guilty
no farther than) the most respectable and honourable part of my profes-
sion.  For ten years I  have confined my attention to that branch of me-
dical practice, which is acknowledged by the profession at large to be the
most difficult to obtain  general success.  And because I have convinced
some, that improvements on the  common practice in such cases, may be
RCComplished,they call out quackery.   My time and my  fortune  have
been devoted to my profession.   I have opened an infirmary for the cure
of diseases of the digestive functions, on my own plan, and with my own
means, which is approved by many of  the most learned and honourable
part of the profession.   I ask, who are the persons that opened the Eye
and  Ear Infirmary,* and the Infirmary for Diseases of the Lungs ?f  And

  ■ ''[Note by a member of the Society.]  Dr. Cheesman is undoubtedly protected in his sign
for the cure of diseases of the eye and ear, because he is or has been one of the commitia
minora, and a surgeon of the New-York Hospital. The difference is, Dr. C. rides under the
sanction of an official station, (the charlatan car)  with the full approbation of the Medical
Society; when an individual who may possess much greater merits and acquirements, is
prohibited the ordinary right of proclaiming his own merits, the result of personal and ar
duous experience.  The medical  tribunal to which he  may have recourse, should possess
and exercise the power to suppress and disparage the pretended superior skill of opponents
whose failures are the cause,  and the only cause of opposition.  The physician to the New-
York Infirmary for diseases of the bowels, has published his theory, principles, and practice,
and dedicated his work to his medical subscribers of the United States.  The practice in
other infirmaries in this city is concealed from the public eye.  Q,uere—which is most dan
gerous to the community, public or private quackery 1
  f [Note by a member of the Society.]  Have the founders of the Infirmary for diseases of the
lungs incurred the approbation of quackery ?  And was not the present resident physiciaa 
46                         APPENDIX.

wherein have I acted more  dishonourably to the profession than those
concerned in these establishments?  They used their abilities to render
their work popular and beneficial to society, and my exertions are made for
the same purposes, in my own behalf. I have published a work on diseases
of the bowels, and as to the secrecy of its contents, remedies, or principles,
(please accept a copy of it).   I will beg to refer you to pages 53. 56, 57,-
96.,and a case 101. Sic, together with the general principles  of the whole
work, designed not so much for  the  benefit of physicians  and persons
residing in cities, as for families distant from correct medical information
and medicalprcscriptions.  There have appeared before the public some
newspaper puffs in favour of the merits of the author; but I know of none
less modest and more in the superlative form of a puff, than the  notice m
the Evening Post, headed,  ' New-York  Medical and Physical Journal;
which says:
  " ' It ought to recommend it to the special notice of the faculty.  It has
received a powerful addition of editorial  talent in the persons of Doctors
A. Smith, T. R. Beck, Stevens, and J. R. Smith, and  presents a combi-
nation  of professional  talent unsurpassed by any similar work in the
 Unions
  " As to my interest in a patent recipe, sanctioned by the general gov-
ernment, I conceive the Medical Society has no more right to investigate
this matter, than they have to investigate my interest in a farm, or will,
or any thing else.  This is confined to the business of the apothecary
establishment, and  so long as it does  not interfere with my professional
services as a physician and surgeon, the subject is foreign from the pow-
ers of the Medical Society ; at all events, they have no right to act upon
 it before they admit me as  a member.   On this head I can only be con-
 sidered on a par with the inventor of Hull's trusses, who has always  re-
 tained his seat in the society; and on the same principle I retained mine
 in the county of Monroe, in defiance of  all overbearing opposition.  My
 name being attached to an American invention, I consider no more dis-
 graceful or dishonourable,  than the names of many of the  professors of
 medicine (who hold the highest medical honours) being attached in  the
 form of certificates, &c. to most of the inventions, patents, and improve-
 ments  which are daily hawked through our country, from east to west
 and from north to south.  When we look at the jarring state of the me-
 dical  profession in this city, how contemptible does it appear to  every
 unprejudiced and honest eye!  The  best of the faculty does not  escape
(Dr. Manly) one of them 1  Let physicians only obtain the countenance of their masters in
the Medical Society, and they may then play the quack, either public or private, without
molestation 
APPENDIX.
47
the malicious charge of quackery, from some quarter or other.  The
friends of the two colleges call each other quacks and impostors;  and
every artful, and I had almost said, disgraceful means, are used to build
up the one by the destruction and downfall of the other.   Those who are
attached to the Medical Society use their utmost to persecute and  dis-
grace such as do not feel disposed to comply with  their wishes and come
under their dominion and control; and several of their most respectable
members have withdrawn from the society with disgust, and a determi-
nation never  again to show their faces within its walls.
  " But, dear sir, I will trespass on your patience no  longer with this
unpleasant subject.  I address you with wounded feelings, and a hope
that your mind will not be biassed by the prejudices of others.   I have
made two honourable attempts to connect myself to your society, and am
now aware that the gigantic power of the society is collected to crush
me at a blow.  But  I ask of them no pity.  Let  envy and jealousy rage
around me, conscious of my own innocence, I feel myself elevated far
beyond  their reach.
   '' Let  me close, by informing you that I was educated in Schenectady,
Albany, and Philadelphia, and have practised medicine and surgery in
this state since 1813, under as legal, and I trust  honourable diploma, as
the state of  New-York has power to confer.   You are at liberty to use
this  letter either publicly or privately, in or  out of the society, as you
 may think proper, with my declaration as first stated, of no dishonourable
 intentions towards yourself or the society.
                      " Respectfully, yours, &c.
                                        "JOHN G.  VOUGHT.'*

   This letter and several others were not answered,although I have since
 been admitted a member  of the New-York Medical Society.  J. G. V.
                               [C]

                    FOR THE AMERICAN LANCET.
  Mr. Editor,—The following queries, addressed to those concerned,
may possibly open the door to further light on the same subject.
  Quere 1st.—Was not the late Medico-Chirurgical Society got up by
a few interested individuals, for the sole purpose of securing to them-
selves offices in the City and County Medical Societies ?
  Quere 2d.—Was  not                  the  founder  of the former
Society, and did he not descend  to the lowest species of intrigue, cau- 
48                         APPENDIX.

cusing, and sycophantic fawning, to obtain his election ?  and when o
tained, did he not advise the dissolution of said Society ?
  Quere 3d.—Were not  a greater part of the present officers of the
Medical Society, members of the Medico-Chirurgical Society; and were
not their meetings turned  into caucuses, and  they employed in election-
eering for themselves ?
  Quere 4th.—Was not a certain professor in Barclay-street College,
the secret spring of  this  hidden machinery;  and was not every thing
arranged according to his  beck and nod ?
  Quere 5th—Was not  a certain honest gentleman  humbugged by a
certain caucus-nomination, in order to secure his support for the caucus
ticket ?
  Quere 6th and  last.—Is  not the Medical  Society of  the City and
County of New-York, as  at present organized, a mere tool of the Bar-
clay-street  College,  and  is  not the  profession disgraced by being re-
presented by a set of whippers-in, who have  neither name, talent,princi-
ple, nor honour?                                    More Anon.

  Note.—The author of these queries  may have been mistaken in rela-
tion to the Medical Society.                            A Member.
                  [From the N. Y. Constellation.]
  Libel Suit.—A case has just been tried before the Court of Sessions
in this city, wherein the state was plaintiff, and Drs. Vought, Anderson,
and Osborn, were defendants.  It was for an alleged libel published  in
the Lancet, of which the defendants were editors.  The libellous words
consisted in accusing Dr. Beck,and some dozen or fifteen other physicians.
among whom were most of the medical professors of the college,  of
having formed a secret association for the very laudable purpose of mo-
nopolizing the cream of the practice, and of keeping down those aspiring
fellows, the younger members of the medical profession.  This accusation
was taken in high dudgeon by the professors, and others therein  men-
tioned, more especially as they were termed in the libellous article, " the
immortal seventeen," in allusion to those political champions in the senate,
who denied the people the privilege  of voting for  their own electors.
But the jury, not having the fear of the " immortals" before their eyes,
and it being proved that  such secret association  did exist, returned  a
verdict of not guilty.
r 
t 
ADVERTISEMENTS.
  The Subscribers to the American Lancet are informed that
I have relinquished all right and title as Editor and Proprietor
to this work from January 18th, 1831.
                               JOHN G. VOUGHT.
  All moneys due for the American Lancet up to the first of
January, 1831, which closes the first two volumes, must be paid
to Dr. John G. Vought, No. 323 Broadway, New-York,  and
all accounts against the work up to this date, are requested to'
be immediately presented for payment.
  The new arrangement for conducting the Lancet obliges me
to urge the final settlement of the books for 1831, without delay.
                                JOHN G. VOUGHT.
               AMERICAN LANCET.
  A few complete copies of the Lancet and Medical Inquirer
for 1830 are on hand,  and will be sold at reduced prices, ei-
ther to booksellers  or  individuals, by applying to Dr. John G.
Vought, No. 323 Broadway, New-York.
This Pamphlet is sold at No. 323 Broadway, and at the differ-
               ent Bookstores in New-York.  .
Price 3 Shillings. 
 
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
NLM 03Z777AT  S
NLM032777895