TRIAL OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D., MILTON FULLER, M.D., SAMUEL GREGG, M.D., H. L. H. HOFFENDAHL, M.D., GEORGE RUSSELL, M.D., I. T. TALBOT, M.D., DAVID THAYER, M.D., and BENJ. H. WEST, M.D., ALL OF BOSTON, FOR PRACTISING HOMEOPATHY, WHILE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY, BEFORE JEREMIAH SPOFFORD, M.DOF GROVELAND. AUGUSTUS TORREY, M.Dof BEVERLY. GEORGE HAYWARD, M.Dof BOSTON. FREDERIC WINSOR, M.Dof WINCHESTER. FRANCIS C GREENE, M.Dof EASTHAMPTON. ON THE COMPLAINT OF LUTHER PARKS, M.Dof BOSTON. R. L. HODGDON, M.Dof ARLINGTON. THOMAS L. GAGE, M.DOF WORCESTER. ASA MILLET, M.DOF BRIDGEWATER. BENJAMIN B. BREED, M.Dof LYNN PRINTED FOR The Examination and Consideration of the Fellows of the Massachusetts Medical Society. BOSTON, MAY, 1 8 73. TRIAL OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D., MILTON FULLER, M.D., SAMUEL GREGG, M.D., H. L. H. HOFFENDAHL, M.D., GEORGE RUSSELL, M.D., I. T. TALBOT, M.D., DAVID THAYER, M.D., and BEN J. H. WEST, M.D., ALL OF BOSTON, FOR PRACTISING HOMOEOPATHY, WHILE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY, BEFORE JEREMIAH SPOFFORD, M.DOF GROVELAND. AUGUSTUS TORREY, M.DOF BEVERLY. GEORGE HAYWARD, M.DOF BOSTON. FREDERIC WINSOR, M.DOF WINCHESTER. FRANCIS C. GREENE, M.Dof EASTHAMPTON. ON THE COMPLAINT OF LUTHER PARKS, M.DOF BOSTON. R. L. HODGDON, M.DOF ARLINGTON. THOMAS L. GAGE, M.DOF WORCESTER. ASA MILLET, M.Dof BRIDGEWATER. BENJAMIN B. BREED, M.DOF LYNN. PRINTED FOR The Examination and Consideration of the Fellows of the Massachusetts Medical Society. BOSTON, MAY, 1 8 73. STATEMENT OF THE TRIAL. In November, 1871, the following notice was received by each of the following gentlemen, viz. : - William Bushnell, M.D. George Russell, M.D. Milton Fuller, M.D. I. T. Talbot, M.D. Samuel Gregg, M.D. David Thayer, M.D. H. L. H. Hoffendahl, M.D. Benj. H. West, M.D. All of Boston. Northampton, Mass., Nov. 4, 1871. To M.D. Sir, - Charges having been preferred against you by a Committee of the Massachusetts Medical Society of " Conduct unbecoming and unwor- thy an honorable physician and member of this Society," to wit: "by practising or professing to practise according to an exclusive theory or dogma, and by belonging to a Society whose purpose is at variance with the principles of, and tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society." • You are hereby directed to appear before a Board of Trial at the Socie- ty's Rooms, No. 3G Temple Place, Perkins Building, on Tuesday, November 21, 1871, at 11 o'clock, A. M., to answer to the same, in accordance with by-laws and instructions of the Society. SAMUEL A. FISK, President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. At the time and place appointed the persons notified appeared before a board consisting of Jeremiah Spofford, M.D., of Groveland. Augustus Torrey, M.D., of Beverly. George Hayward, M.D., of Boston. Frederic Winsor, M.D., of Winchester. Francis C. Greene, M.D., of Easthampton. The charges were then presented, signed by Luther Parks, M.D., of Boston, R. L. Hodgdon, M.D., of Arlington. Thos. L. Gage, M.D., of Worcester. Asa Millet, M.D., of Bridgewater. Benjamin B. Breed, M.D., of Lynn. The accused protested against being tried upon charges of so vague a character; against the manner in which the so-called board of trial was constituted ; and also against the manner in which the trial had thus far been conducted. The board refused to receive or consider these protests, when the trial was interrupted by a temporary injunction from the Su- preme Court. 4 Arguments on the question of an injunction were made by counsel before the Supreme Court, and the injunction was removed, the Court declining, at this stage of proceedings, to decide upon the powers of the Society under its charter. In April, 1873, the following notice was received by all the per- sons accused, except Samuel Gregg, M. D., removed by death. . Boston, April 1, 1873. To M.D. Sir: - Specifications having been demanded of charges preferred against you by a Committee of the Massachusetts Medical Society of " Conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of this Society," to wit: " by practising or professing to practise according to an exclusive theory or dogma, and by belonging to a Society whose purpose is at variance with the principles of, and tends to disorganize, the Massa- chusetts Medical Society," and you having been directed to appear before a Board of Trial at the the Society's rooms, No. 36 Temple place, Perkins Building, on Tuesday, November 21, 1871, at 11 o'clock, A. M., to answer to the same. In accordance with By-laws and instructions of the Society. By Dr. FISK, Then President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. The Committee now specify that the exclusive theory or dogma referred to in said charges is the theory or dogma known as Homeopathy, and the Society therein referred to, whose purpose is at variance with, and tends to disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society, is the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society. The Committee file the following as further specifications : CHARGE I.- That you are guilty of an attempt to disorganize and de- stroy the Massachusetts Medical Society. Specification 1 - That you have joined, and are a member, of a certain Society, known as the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, whose purposes are at variance with, and which tends to disorganize, the Massa- chusetts Medical Society. Specification 2.- That you belong to, and are a member of. a certain Soc ety called the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, which adopts as its principle in the treatment of disease a certain exclusive theory or dogma, known as Homeopathy. CHARGE II.- That you are guilty of conduct unbecoming and un- worthy an honorable physician and member of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Specification 1.- In that you practise, or profess to practise, medicine according to a certain exclusive theory or dogma known as Homeopathy. Specification 2.- In that while a member of the Massachusetts Medi- cal Society you have joined, and are a member of, a certain Society called the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, which adopts as its prin- ciple in the treatment of disease a certain exclusive theory or dogma known as Homeopathy, and whose purposes are at variance with, and which tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society. Specification 3.- In that you are a member of a certain Society, called the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, which adopts as its prin- ciple in the treatment of disease a certain exclusive theory or dogma, known as Homeopathy, whose purposes are at variance with, and which tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society. You are further hereby reminded that to try the same, the Board of Trial stands adjourned to April 29th, 1873, at 11 A. M., at 36 Temple Place. GEO. C. SHATTUCK, President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 5 At the time and place of adjournment the accused appeared. R. L. Hodgdon, M.D.,of Arlington, was the only one of the pros- ecutors present. He presented the charges as amended and added to; and as documentary proof he exhibited the Act of Incorporation of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society and the section of its by-laws which state that " Any person who . . . . acknowledges the truth of the maxim similia similibus curantur may become eligible to membership " of the Society. He read extracts from the Organon, in which Hahnemann states that Homoeopathy is the opposite of, and can have nothing to do with Allopathy. He presented the section of a By-law of the Massachusetts Medical Society, passed in I860, as follows : - " No person shall hereafter be admitted a member of the Society who professes to cure diseases by Spiritualism, Homoeopathy, or Thompsonianism." Also a resolution adopted by the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1871 to the effect, that the practice of Homoeopathy is " conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of this Society." Also, the fact that the accused were known as practitioners of homoeopathy and members of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society. Dr. I. T. Talbot appeared as counsel for Dr. William Bushnell, in behalf of whom and for the rest of the accused, he made the following demands of the Board of Trial: - 1. That the trial should not be held with closed doors, but that their friends should be allowed to be present. Demand refused. 2. That reporters for the press should be allowed to be present; that as this was a matter affecting the character of the accused, the public had a right to know the evidence produced and the manner of conducting this trial. Demand refused. 3. That the accused be allowed legal counsel, since it is pro- posed to dispossess them of rights, privileges and person aljjroperty. Demand refused. 4. That they be allowed to have an advocate, not a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, present to advise them. Demand refused. 5. That, as they have reason to object to the record of the Sec- retary, a phonographic reporter of the trial should be appointed by mutual consent, and sworn to the faithful performance of his duty. Demand refused. 6. That the accused may employ a phonographic reporter. Demand refused. 6 7. That an amanuensis, not a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, be allowed to sit beside the accused and assist him in taking notes of the trial. Demand refused. 8. The right to peremptory challenge. Demand refused. 9. The right to challenge members of the Board of Trial for good and sufficient reasons. Demand refused. The accused then presented the following protest and asked the board to receive it and put it on file. PROTEST OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D. The undersigned having been summoned to appear before a board of trial, said to have been appointed by the Massachusetts Medical Society, to answer to charges said to have been preferred against him by a committee of said Society, at a place named in Boston, on the 21st November, 1871, And having been further summoned to appear before the same board at the same place, on this day, at what is called an adjourned meeting of said board, Presents the following Protest against any further proceedings by the said body, assuming to be a board of trial: - 1. That this is not a lawful meeting, by adjournment, of said alleged board. 2. That the persons professing to act as a board of trial are not legally constituted as a board of trial, for the reason, among others, that it is not elected, directly or indirectly, by the Massa- chusetts Medical Society. 3. That, if the board be legally constituted, it has no power to suspend, expel, or disfranchise any Fellow of the Society. 4. If the board be legally constituted, and have power to try the undersigned on charges duly preferred, it has no authority to try the undersigned upon the two charges and the five specifications under the same, to which the undersigned has been summoned to answer at this time, because some of the same have been newly made, and others have been altered in material parts, and are not the charges and specifications for the trial, of which this board of trial was organized. 5. That the undersigned, if put to trial, is by law entitled to a right of challenge for cause as to members of the board, and to some right in the selection of said members, and that any by-laws or rules annulling or abridging said right are void ; and has a right to the assistance of legal counsel, and to the aid of an advocate who may not be a member of the Society, and that any by-law or rule disregarding or abridging said right is void. 7 6. That the charges have not been made to the President of the Society in writing and signed by three members, as required by the by-laws. 7. That this board has been continued in office beyond the year for which its members were elected commissioners on trials. 8. That this board has not been organized by the President of the Society, under the By-law xxxi, section 1, to try the under- signed upon the two charges, if the said two charges have been duly made to him by three Fellows. (Signed) WILLIAM BUSHNELL. The other members accused filed a similar protest, with the exception of Dr. Benjamin H. West, who presented the following protest. I, the undersigned, Fellow of the Massachusetts Medical Society, who have been cited to appear before a board of trial, according to the foregoing notice, appear at the time and place named therein, and respectfully protest against any proceedings being taken against me, Because the Massachusetts Medical Society has no power or right to try and expel or otherwise punish any of its members for any of the causes set forth in said notice ; Because the power to suspend, expel, or disfranchise any Fellow of the Society is vested in the whole body of the Fellows of the Society, and they have no right to delegate that power to any board of trial or select body of the members ; Because this board of trial is not legally constituted, and has no right or power to try me upon any charges whatsoever; Because the by-law or resolution on which this accusation is founded, is an ex post facto law, and therefore inoperative. BENJ. H. WEST. Boston, April 29, 1873. PROTEST OF BENJ. H. WEST, M.D. ANSWER OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D., TO THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. The undersigned, not waiving the protest which he has offered, but still insisting upon every part thereof, and denying the right of this alleged board of trial to hold him to trial on the present charges and specifications or any other, - As to Charge I, says that he is not guilty of the same. As to Specification 1, he says that he is a member of the Massa- chusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society. He denies that the said Society tends to disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society as by law constituted and legally administered. He denies that the 8 purposes of the said Homoeopathic Society are at variance with the legal purposes of the Massachusetts Medical Society. He de- nies that this Specification, if proved, establishes the charge. As to Specification 2, he denies that the Massachusetts Homoeo' pathic Medical Society adopts as its principle in the treatment or disease any exclusive theory or dogma. He denies that this Speci- fication, if proved, establishes the Charge. As to Charge I, and both the Specifications under this same, he further says that the legal purpose of the Massachusetts Medical Society is the promotion of the art of healing generally and the preservation of health, including the study of anatomy, physiol- ogy, hygiene, dietetics, drugs, chemistry, and all scientific in- vestigations of nature and the human body, bearing upon the preservation and restoration of health. That it is not in the power of persons constituting the Society for the time being, or for any to whom they may attempt to delegate their powers, to limit the purposes of that Society, and to dismiss or suspend members for the honest holding of opinions, or the honest practice of medicine, because such opinions or practice may not be in accordance with the opinions or practice of those, or of the majority of those, who attempt to expel them. That homoeopathy is within the science and art of restoring and preserving health, and is recognized by law in Massachusetts as the lawful practice of medicine, and desira- ble and useful to the community. That the said Homoeopathic Medical Society is not bound to, and does not bind its members to, any exclusive theory or dogma in the treatment of disease, in any such manner as to cause it to tend to disorganize or to be at variance with the lawful purposes of the Massachusetts Medical Society, although the nature and purposes of said Homoeopathic Society may not conform to the present opinions of certain members of the Massachusetts Medical Society; and whether such opinions may, at any given time, be the opinions of a majority of the Massachu- setts Medical Society, the undersigned has no means of knowing, but he says that as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Soci- ety he is bound only by the purposes and objects set forth in the charter, and not by those of a majority of its members at any given time. The undersigned further says that the first Article of the By-laws of the said Homoeopathic Society is as follows : " This Society demands for itself absolute liberty in science, and hence requires of its applicants for membership no creed or confession of medical belief, but only the expression of a willingness to act for the fur- therance of its declared objects." And the second Article declares the objects of the Society as follows : " The development of the materia medica by proving drugs upon the systems of men and animals ; the improvement of methods of administering medicines thus proved to the sick, in accordance with the formula ' simiha similibus curantur'; the encouragement of special studies and re- 9 ports calculated to improve its members in the collateral branches of medicine." By the 17th Article it is set forth that any person who has received the title of Doctor of Medicine from any legally authorized medical institution, and who sustains a good moral char- acter, is eligible to membership, after being examined and approved by the Board of Censors. The undersigned further says that said Homoeopathic Society has for its object the unlimited investigation of the science and art of healing, giving only special attention to what is known as homoeopathy, and has no special theory or dogma as to surgery, obstetrics, anatomy, physiology, hygiene, or dietetics, and does not, in special cases at the discretion of the physician, preclude resort to any of the methods now in use among the more intelligent physicians who do not use homoeopathy, such as enemata, emetics, cathartics, or other resources, either mechani- cal or in the nature of mechanical expedients, or chemical antidotes, as in cases of poison. The members of the Homoeopathic Society claim a right and are allowed to use any means within the scope of the materia medica, and in the whole range of medical science, for the cure or relief of disease. As to Charge II, the undersigned says that he is not guilty of the same. He further earnestly protests that the three specifica- tions under said Charge, fairly and reasonably considered, do not warrant the charge of conduct unbecoming an honorable physician. That if the board of trial should believe the Specifications to be proved, it ought not to find the undersigned guilty of dishonorable conduct; that such an act of the board would be an attempt to in- jure the moral reputation of the undersigned in the community, on specifications which are consistent with the honest holding of opin- ions and honorable professional practice in accordance therewith, and with membership of both Societies, without any intent on his part which can be called dishonorable as to either Society. In short, that such an act on the part of the board of trial would itself come wfithin the terms of the second charge. As to Specification 1, he says that he does not practise or profess to practise medicine according to any exclusive theory or dogma, and, in explanation, refers to what he has above said respecting the purposes and objects of the said Homoeopathic Society. That he has faith in the general principle known as homoeopathy, and prac- tises in accordance therewith, but is not precluded from resorting at his discretion to other methods of treatment (instances of which he has given above) for special purposes and in special cases, and is bound at any time to qualify or entirely change his opinions and practice upon any new light being thrown by science on the subject of medicine. He denies that the Specification, if proved, estab- lishes the Charge. As to the Specifications 2 and 3, he refers to what he has said under Charge I, and under Specification 1 of Charge II. As to both the Charges and all the Specifications under the same, he says that 10 he cannot lawfully or justly be deprived of his property and fran- chise and valuable interests in the Massachusetts Medical Society, or suspended from the use of the same, or in any way be punished by said Society, on the ground that he is a member of the Massa- chusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, and has faith in the general principles known as homoeopathy, and conforms his general prac- tice honestly and honorably thereto, while at the same time he is not precluded from the use of any or all methods at his discretion now practised by intelligent physicians who have not faith in homoeopathy (instances of which he has above stated), and has no theories or practice respecting surgery, obstetrics, anatomy, phys- iology, hygiene, or dietetics not open to and common among physicians of all schools ; and he is engaged in scientific study of the whole subject of health and disease, and is under no obliga- tions, individual or associate, interfering with his duty to accept any results of science, or with the promotion of the purposes of the Massachusetts Medical Society, as defined by law. And while the said Society have recognized him as duly educated and prop- erly qualified for the duties of his profession, and make no charges of want of knowledge or of intelligence, or of any false pretences or deception, or of any immorality, or of any conduct actually dishonorable, that to punish him in any manner, under these circumstances, on a charge of dishonorable conduct, would be a false pretence before the community, and a perversion of the purposes, privileges, and powers of the Massachusetts Medical Society, in order to injure such members of the same as honestly hold opinions as to medicine, recognized by law as legitimate, but differing from those of the persons who have or suppose themselves to have at the present time the power to control the said Society. (Signed) WM. BUSHNELL. The other members accused filed an answer similar to the above with the exception of Dr. West, who presented the following. ANSWER OF BENJ. H. WEST, M. D., TO THE CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. The undersigned denies that the practising or professing to practise according to the system of homoeopathy, or belonging to the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, is conduct un- becoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and denies that the purpose of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is at variance with the principles of, or tends to disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. BENJ. H. WEST. Boston, April 29, 1873. 11 EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. The following documentary evidence was introduced in the case of Dr. Bushnell, and was accepted by the board of trial as ap- plying to all the cases : - 1. The Act of Incorporation of the Massachusetts Homoeo- pathic Medical Society, showing that membership of the said So- ciety was authorized by law. 2. That section of the By-laws of said society relating to mem- bership, as originally adopted. 3. That portion of the present By-laws of said Society relating to the objects of the Society and to membership. 4. The Act of Incorporation of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Hospital. 5. The Act of Incorporation of the Homoeopathic Medical Dis- pensary. 6. The Act of Incorporation of the New England Homoeopathic Medical College. 7. Correspondence with the Treasurer of the Massachusetts Medical Society, showing that the accused had faithfully paid their dues to the Society. The following is a resume of testimony introduced. It was pro- posed by the accused to give it under oath, but the chairman ruled that the word of any respectable physician would be accepted by the board. EVIDENCE OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL, M.D. I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1856,-and joined the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society two years later; I considered the object of the Homoeopathic Society to be to improve that branch of the healing art in which drugs are applied to remove the symptoms of disease; while I believe homoeopathic medicines to be the best for this purpose, I have never signed any pledge to practise only in accordance with this theory, and if any better sys- tem can be shown I shall be happy to learn it; have never' known any effort on the part of homoeopathic doctors or members to disor- ganize or destroy, or in any way disturb, the Massachusetts Medical Society. The Chairman. Have you ever been hindered from investigat- ing any branch of the science of medicine by the Massachusetts Medical Society? Dr. Bushnell. If this trial is not to hinder such investigation, I am at loss to understand what it is for. 12 Dr. Hodgdon. When you joined the society were you not asked by the censors if you practised homoeopathy ? Dr. Bushnell. I was asked what my opinion of the system of homoeopathy was, and answered that I was not aware that there was such a " system." I began to investigate homoeopathy about one year after joining this society. The Chairman. Do you think a physician should confine him- self to the practice of homoeopathy in all cases ? Dr. Bushnell. There is much in a physician's practice to which homoeopathy cannot apply. If, in an obstetric case, it becomes necessary to use the forceps, the instrument should be applied " heroically." This and surgery are not properly the practice of medicine, though medicine might be required as accessory in the treatment. I have never, in any way to my knowledge, sought to destroy or disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. I have practised medicine about fifty years ; I joined the Massa- chusetts Medical Society in 1842, and paid dues regularly till 1862, when I was placed on the retired list. I was one of the original corporators of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society ; its object was to examine the action of medicines in accordance with the homoeopathic law, and to develop, as far as possible, this system of medicine; it was in no way designed, nor has it ever acted in opposition to the Massachusetts Medical Society ; it has in no way sought to destroy or disorganize that Society; it has no By-law or pledge by which its members are restricted to any ex- clusive theory or dogma in their practice ; every member is left perfectly free to give such medicine and use such treatment as he thinks best for his patient; I am convinced of the curative effect of minute, homoeopathic doses in severe diseases, and, if not allowed to use them in such cases, would at once retire from practice. The Chairman. Have you ever been prevented by the Massa- chusetts Medical Society from making any investigations you might choose ? Dr. Fuller. No ; but this prosecution arises on account of such investigations, and of my belief in and practice of homoeopathy. Dr. Talbot. Have you ever known any investigation of ho- moeopathy to be made by the Massachusetts Medical Society? Dr. Fuller. I never have. Dr. Talbot. Do you know of any By-law of the Massachusetts Medical Society to prevent your making investigations in homoe- opathy, or of joining any society which makes such investigations? Dr. Fuller. I do not. I never heard of any such By-law, and think that any such By-law would be inconsistent with the Charter of this Society. EVIDENCE OF MILTON FULLER, M. D. 13 EVIDENCE OF H. L. H. HOFFENDAHL, M.D. I received my medical diploma from Harvard University in 1852. Then went to Europe and spent two years in continuing my medi- cal studies. In 1854, immediately upon my return from Europe, I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society, and was admitted with- out any questions being asked as to how I intended to practise. From that time until now, I have been uninterruptedly engaged in the practice of medicine in Boston. My method of practice has been simply to use any method of treatment that I consider necessary for the benefit of my patients. I have used so-called homoeopathic remedies, and so-called allo- pathic remedies, cold-water treatment, electricity, hygienic mea- ures, etc., without admitting that any individual or any society had the right to dictate to me what treatment I must adopt. After practising in this manner for a number of years, it was suggested to me by members of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society that, as I was in the habit of using homoeopathic treatment, it was proper that I should join the homoeopathic society, in order to define my position, and that I might not be accused of double-dealing or dishonesty. It was well known that physicians, members of the Massachu- setts Medical Society, but not professedly homoeopaths, and not members of the Homoeopathic Society, were in the habit of using homoeopathic remedies clandestinely; that is: in the sick room, with doors closed, they would confidentially inform their patients that they were competent to practise homoeopathy, and would ad- minister homoeopathic remedies, - while before the world they would deny any belief in that system. Now, such a course, it appears, is allowed to members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, but it is not considered by me to be either honest or honorable. My course, therefore, seemed clear. I joined the Homoeopathic Society in 1857, in order to put on record the fact that I did, -when I chose, use so-called homoeopathic treatment openly, and denied the power or right of any man or body of men to refuse me that privilege. Since joining the Homoeopathic Society, I have not altered my method of practice in the least; using homoeopathic treatment when I thought proper, and continuing to use any other remedy or method of treatment that I considered as likely to be of benefit to my patients. And I can truly testify that in pursuing this course I have not been hindered or annoyed or threatened with expulsion by the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society. I can testify that there has been nothing exclusive or illiberal in the action of that Society ; that I have been allowed that perfect freedom of thought 14 and action, which every medical man, who believes that medicine is a free science, demands as his right and prerogative. Dr. Hodgdon. Have you been hindered in making any com- munication to the Massachusetts Medical Society, on the subject of homoeopathy ? Dr. Hoffendahl. Not hindered and not encouraged. It is well known that communications at the meetings of the Society are not allowed, except by preliminary arrangement, and such has never been offered to me. Dr. Talbot. Have you ever been invited to make any report concerning homoeopathy, before the Society? Dr. Hoffendahl. Never. I am seventy-seven years old ; have been in practice fifty-three years; began to investigate homoeopathy in 1846 or 1847, and have since continued such studies ; I believe it is the best system of medicine, but should be very glad to find any better; have never sought to injure, destroy, or disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society, but have sought to learn from it as much as pos- sible. Think that if homoeopathy were investigated by the Society it would greatly benefit its members. The Chairman. Why, if you believe in homoeopathy, do you remain in the Massachusetts Medical Society? Dr. Russell. Because I see no good reason why I should leave it. It is a society designed to include all educated physicians of good character, and has nothing to do with medical opinions or belief. Dr. Hodgdon. What is allopathy ? Dr. Russell. I suppose, from the derivation of the word, it means the opposite of homoeopathy. Dr. Hodgdon. Do you consider the Massachusetts Medical Society an allopathic society? Dr. Russell. I do not, though some of its members may be allopaths. If the Society were such, I should leave it at once. EVIDENCE OF GEORGE RUSSELL, M.D. EVIDENCE OF DAVID THAYER, M.D. I have been practising medicine for thirty years; I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society in the year 1845, and was one of the original corporators of .the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, in 1856 ; its object is the improvement of the science of medicine in accordance with the principle similia si/milibus curantur; homoeopathy is not yet perfect, ami the object of the Society is to improve it; I have never known oi an effort being made on the part of the members of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Soci- ety to destroy or injure the Massachusetts Medical Society. 15 There is not, and never has been, required from the members of the Homoeopathic Medical Society a pledge to practise in accord- ance with any particular theory. The Chairman. Do you consider it honorable, as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, to practise homoeopathy? Dr. Thayer. Perfectly so. The Society is chartered by law for physicians of every school. Education and character are, by that charter, the only requisites for membership. Medical opinions legally form no part of the qualifications of members Dr. Talbot. Do you consider it honorable, as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, to give unmedicated sugar pellets, and pretend that they are homoeopathic medicine ? Dr. Thayer. I should consider it very dishonorable and down- right dishonesty Dr. Talbot. If it were known that a physician was in the habit of practising such deception, should you think him sufficiently honorable to be worthy of a place on any board of trial ? Dr. Thayer. No; I should think he deserved expulsion from any honorable society. Dr. Talbot. Will you state the history of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society? Dr. Thayer. It was first established in 1840 by four or five physicians, and was called the Homoeopathic Fraternity. Its meetings were informal and social in character, and were held at the houses of the members. As the numbers increased, the name was changed to The Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, about 1850, and in 1856 it was chartered by the State without any change in the objects of the Society, which were to develop a branch of medicine not cultivated by the Massachusetts Medical Society. At present there are between one and two hundred members of the Homoeopathic Society. The Chairman. Have you ever been prevented by the Massa- chusetts Medical Society from making any investigations in regard to homoeopathy ? Dr. Thayer. No, I never have; and from many of the mem- bers who knew that I believed in, and practised, homoeopathy, I have received only the greatest courtesy and kindness ; but there are members of this Society, who, at its meetings, and at other times and places, have gone out of their way to insult those mem bers who believe in homoeopathy; and I consider that this prose- cution is designed to prevent the investigation of homoeopathy by members of this Society. EVIDENCE OF I. T. TALBOT, M.D. At the time I joined the Massachusetts Medical Society in 185-1 I was a member, and was known to be the secretary, of the Homoeo- pathic Society; the president, Dr. George Hayward, senior, when 16 he signed my diploma, jocosely remarked that he did not know but we should have a majority of homoeopaths in the Society soon ; I have continued a member in this Society till the present time, reg- ularly paying my dues, and have never sought to introduce any disturbing topics into the Society. For twenty years I have been familiar with the action of the Homoeopathic Society, and have never known it, or any of its mem- bers, to seek to destroy, or disorganize, or in any manner injure the Massachusetts Medical Society. There is no oath or pledge bind- ing its members to any particular theory in practice ; nor is there, in my opinion, anything in the membership of the Homoeopathic Society in the least inconsistent with the membership of the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is a special society, like the Gynaecological or Ophthalmological Societies. It cultivates a single idea or branch of medicine which the general society has neglected. The Chairman. When you joined the Homoeopathic Society, why did n't you leave this ? Dr. Talbot. For the reason that I did not cease to be a physician ; and this Society was chartered for the purpose, and with the design, to include every educated physician in the State. The Chairman. Have you ever been prevented from presenting your homoeopathic views in the Society ? Dr. Talbot. I have never been prevented, but I knew that the mere mention of homoeopathy was offensive to certain members, and I did not wish to do anything to disturb in the least the har- mony of the Society. Perhaps it would have been better to have presented our views and had them discussed within the Society, but it was from no wish to destroy or disorganize the Society that this was not done. EVIDENCE OF C. W. SWAN, M.D. In answer to questions by Dr. Talbot. I am Secretary of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and have been for several years. The society has about 1,200 members. Think it is as prosperous now as ever before. Have never known the accused to do anything to injure or destroy the society. So far as I know they have been peaceable members of the society. R. L. Hodgdon, M. D., the prosecutor, refused to testify. The accused offered to present the testimony of every member of the Massachusetts Homeopathic Medical Society, if it were ne- cessary to prove that the object and character of that Society was sucli as had been already stated by witnesses. The Chairman. Cumulative evidence on these points will not be necessary, and will not add to the strength of testimony. The accused proposed at this point to present no further evidence. ARGUMENTS FOR THE ACCUSED. Dr. I. T. TALBOT then read the following argument in defence of Dr. Bushnell, which was also accepted as the argument for Dr. Hoffendahl, Dr. Russell, and himself. Gentlemen of the Board of Trial: - Rarely, perhaps never, in the history of medical jurisprudence, has there been such a spectacle as is presented here today. Rarely, in any times, certainly never in modern times, has there been anything like it in civil or criminal jurisprudence. We are summoned here, at the peril of loss of val- uable interests, and of injury to our good names, to answer to charges of a most serious description, before a tribunal selected by our opponents, sitting with closed doors, all legal counsel pro- hibited us, all means excluded of securing a satisfactory report of what takes place here, the most usual and necessary aids of assist- ants or amanuenses prohibited ; and, when we offer to prove facts which would exclude one of your number from sitting in trial upon us on every principle of justice, the Board has no ear for our com- plaint. We protest against this tribunal as not constituted in accordance with the By-laws of our Society, for the reasons already presented to you. We protest against it further, as constituted in a manner unfair and unjust, and we believe unknown to modern practice, whether in courts or in societies, where valuable interests and reputations are concerned. The question being the character of homoeopathy, and the rights of those who practise it, the court is selected by an opponent of homoeopathy, and composed entirely of its opponents. In proceedings analogous to these, where a special court is selected, it is customary to send to the accused a list of names from which they may strike off a certain number, the remainder constituting the court, or to provide some method of reciprocal exclusion and selection. These safeguards against injustice having been disregarded, there is the more reason why a challenge for cause should be allowed. We never heard of a court, however constituted, and for whatever purpose constituted, that refused to entertain a challenge for cause .against one of its members. It is not that you decide our grounds of challenge to be insuffi- cient, but you have refused even to hear them, whatever they may be. That you should limit the length of our argument, we admit was a matter of discretion, but we regret that you thought your dis- cretion required you to allow six of us, separately tried, an average of half an hour apiece. This has compelled us to some extent to 18 unite in our argument, while in common justice each of us should have had the right to present his view's in the manner most satis- factory to himself. But a far greater injustice has been attempted, - an assault upon our reputations, dearer to us than aught this Society can give us. The real charge against us is that we are members of a society, established and encouraged by law, and that we practise medicine after a method recognized by the supreme law of Massa- chusetts as not only legitimate, but as useful and deserving of the highest encouragement. The real charge is that we are homceopa- thists. That is its beginning, middle, and end. Yet the charges are couched in the form which you would apply in the case of a disreputable criminal or outlaw. Each of us is charged with " conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician." The specification is that we are homoeopathists. Massachusetts has said in the highest form in which she can utter her voice, that homoeopathy is worthy of an honorable physician, and entitles its practitioners to receive the " same degree " of " doctor in medi- cine," as conferred by Harvard University and the Berkshire Medi- cal Institution. Massachusetts has, by its statutes, held out to public confidence and support homoeopathic hospitals, dispensaries, and medical colleges, and has consented to put the broad seal of its approval upon the degrees of " doctors in medicine " given by the Homoeopathic College. Yet we stand before you to meet the charge, that the holding of such degrees and belonging to such institutions and practising medicine by those methods is dishonor- able. Gentlemen, our prosecutors know that there is no connection between the charge they have made upon us and the facts they have specified. If our accusers think that this Society has a right to expel members otherwise qualified, solely because they are ho- moeopathists, let them say so like honorable men. That will raise a fair question of authority and policy. But we resent, and a just community will denounce, an attempt to send us away branded as dishonorable men, when the objection is only that we practise med- icine in a manner allowed and encouraged by law, but which is not in accordance with the opinions of our accusers. It is the accusa- tion that is dishonorable, and not the act imputed to us. We appeal with confidence to you who assume to be our judges, that if you decide against homoeopathy and homoeopathists, you will say so and no more. If you think membership of the Homoeopathic Soci- ety and the practice of homoeopathy are inconsistent witli member- ship of this Society, we trust you will say so in plain terms, and that you will not, by calling difference of opinion, however great, dishon- orable, lend yourselves as instruments of calumny and injustice. That a virulent party spirit, which identifies difference of opinion in practice with dishonor, should raise up within a large profession accusers enough barely to comply with the requirements of the by- 19 laws, is not a matter of surprise ; but it would be a cause of sur- prise and deep regret, if that spirit should enter into and possess the court itself. We are conscious of the great disadvantages under which we speak. We are aware that, in presenting this protest against these proceedings, and in speaking as plainly as we have felt it our duty to speak, we incur the risk of increasing any prejudice you may have against our cause. It remains for us to bespeak for the special points we present to you the most patient and impartial consideration you can give them ; and this not for our sakes mainly, but for your own, and for the good name of this Society, of which we are all alike members. THE POWERS AND OBJECTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY. This Society is not a private association ; membership of which may depend on the will of the majority. It is a public institution, established by the people, for the good of all the people ; and mem- bership of it is a property and franchise, recognized by law, and of which we cannot be deprived, except for reasons permitted by the law. The majority of the Society can no more deprive us of this right and property by an exercise of its will than it can of any other right or property. Chief-Justice Shaw says of this Society, in his opinion in Barrows v. Bell, 7 Gray, 314: "The Massachu- setts Medical Society were not a private association. They were a public corporation, chartered by one of the earliest acts under the constitution. . . . The charter invested the Society, their members and licentiates, with large powers and privileges in regu- lating important public interests of the practice of medicine and surgery. . . . This Society was regarded by these legislative acts as a public institution, by the action of which the public would be deeply affected in one of its important public interests, the health of the people. . . . The status or condition of being a member of this Society was one of a permanent character and recognized by law." The Society has a library, a museum, and funds in which we have a vested estate, and to which we have contributed annually. It is a public institution, of which there is a right of membership given by law to all persons practising medicine within the Com- monwealth, having certain qualifications prescribed by law. The preamble to the charter (Act Nov. 1, 17*1) is as follows: " As health is essentially necessary to the happiness of society, and as its preservation or recovery are closely connected with the knowledge of the animal economy, and of the properties and effects of medicines ; and as the benefits of medical institutions formed on liberal principles and encouraged by the patronage of the law, are universally acknowledged, be it therefore enacted," etc. There we have the foundation stones of the edifice. First, it is a 20 public institution established by law. Second, its object is to pro- mote the knowledge of the animal economy, and of the properties and effects of medicines. Third, for these purposes it is " formed on liberal principles." Having conferred the usual powers of corporations, the charter proceeds, - "And whereas it is clearly of importance that a just discrimination should be made between such as are duly educated and properly qualified for the duties of their profession and those who may ignorantly and wickedly administer medicine, whereby the health and lives of many valuable individuals may be endan- gered or perhaps lost to the community,"-and thereupon establishes a system of tests for membership. Full power and authority was given to examine all candidates who should present themselves, respecting their skill in their pro- fession ; and if, upon such examination, they " shall be found skilled in their profession, and fitted for the practice of it, they shall receive the approbation of the Society, in letters testimonial of such examination under the seal of said Society, signed by the president or such other person or persons as shall be appointed for that purpose." By the next section it appears that if the presi- dent or other person shall obstinately refuse to examine any candi- date so offering himself, each and every such person shall be sub- ject to a fine of £100, to be recovered by said candidate, and to his own use, in any court within the Commonwealth. This is the foundation of the Society, and it will be seen that its whole object was to prevent medicine from being administered, first, ignorantly ; second, wickedly. Not one word is to be found as to whether the candidate practises in accordance with the opinions of the majority, or whether he believes what is taught in existing schools. There are two qualifications, and two only, and these qualifica- tions have been guarded by the Legislature of Massachusetts, at every point from 1781, till now; and these qualifications are edu- cation and character. We have been admited into this Society, as having the necessary qualifications of education and skill in medicine, and of personal character. There is no charge that we have since lost either of those qualifications. In 17b9 the powers and duties of the Society were further defined, and the penalty for refusing to examine " such as may apply" was changed in amount and made applicable to the officer appointed to examine the candidates. The act authorized the Society to describe and point out such medical instruction or education as they should judge requisite for candidates; but no other course of study or previous preparation seems ever to have been pointed out under this or subsequent acts, than such as is prescribed by the third article of the By-laws, - a sound mind, a good moral char- acter, proper age, some acquaintance with Latin, geometry, and experimental philosophy, previous study of three years with some 21 respectable physician or physicians, and attendance upon two full courses on anatomy, phj siology, chemistry, materia inedica, mid- wifery, and the theory and practice of medicine and surgery. No man's belief or mode of practice was here referred to, and no pledge required, other than was furnished by education and character. The Massachusetts Medical Society did not yet believe it had the power, nor dare to proclaim the will of the majority as absolute truth, and to crush out liberty of thought and freedom of action among its members. In 1803, the Society was authorized to increase its membership beyond seventy, and to choose as members " any physicians or sur- geons resident within this Commonwealth, " and to confer upon Councillors the powers before exercised by the whole body; and provision was made for the appointment of five Censors to examine " all persons " offering themselves, who had followed the prescribed course of study; and if approved by a majority of the examiners, and of good moral character, they " shall be" admitted as mem- bers after three years' approved practice. In addition to this, all who have received the degree of Bachelor of Medicine at Harvard University, after three years' practice, "shall be" admitted as members. In 1831, this provision respecting three years' approved practice was repealed. No exclusiveness appears up to this time. The gates swing wide open to men of education and character, and the legislature may be supposed to have intended a pretty liberal basis for the Society when it provided that " all persons, etc." who were able to pass the examination, and that graduates of the medical school at Harvard, without an examination,- embracing, almost necessarily, men of radical and widely divergent views and habits,- should be admitted members of the Society. In 183G, the revised statutes, chap, xxii, provided for district- ing the State and the appointment of Censors, who, under a pen- alty of four hundred dollars for refusal, shall examine all who offer themselves, if they have received the prescribed education and are duly qualified as candidates ; and they were allowed to admit, with- out examination, persons from other States who had received an education equivalent to that prescribed here, and who had been duly examined and approved by some competent authority. Here, again, no test but education and moral character. We look in vain to the statutes for even the faintest sign of favoring any particu- lar school of medicine for the State. If there were any one thing required to prove the general and comprehensive character of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and that it was designed by the State of Massachusetts to include every physician who had any claim as such, the following section of an act passed by the legislature in 1818, chapter 113, section 1, would be sufficient: - 22 " Be it enacted, etc., That no person entering the practice of physic or surgery after the first day of July next shall be entitled to the benefit of law for the recovery of any debt or fee accruing for his professional services unless he shall previously to rendering those services have been licensed by the officers of the Massachu- setts Medical Society, hereafter to be designated in this act." It matters not that this law was soon after repealed at the re- quest of the members themselves, the fact remains, that the legisla- ture designed to include all physicians within this Society. No further legislation upon this subject has been made, except in 1859, when we find an act providing that no person shall hereafter become a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, except upon examination by the Censors, but that " Any person of good moral character found to possess the qualifications prescribed by the rules and regulations of said Society shall be admitted a mem- ber of the Society." If this altered the law it was only by the exclusion from membership of the graduates of the Harvard Medi- cal School, or of other medical schools referred to in the By-laws, unless previously examined. The right to refuse membership to " any person" properly qualified under the rules and regulationsis here expressly denied. This bolt, apparently aimed at the old medical schools, cannot be diverted against the homoeopathists, for the Hiles and regulations provided no other course of study and preparation than we have before referred to, - and the Society was not yet so venturesome as to ask the suppression by law of suclrof its members as were so earnest in the advancement of medical science as to brave the terrors of its excommunication rather than surrender the rights they acquired under* the act of incorporation, and all subsequent enactments. In this rapid review of the legislation in reference to member- ship, we have dwelt only upon the provisions relating to the ques- tion who may become members. We believe, and we defy any one to show proof to the contrary, that Massachusetts meant what she said she did, - to promote medical science, to encourage faithful endeavors to improve the health of her people by any method of study or practice. We deny that it has ever been her policy to foster a special school of medicine, or to raise up barriers against progress and the freest inquiry. Her Medical Society was not incorporated to promote the health of her people in any one way, but long since she took to heart the wise words of old John Robinson, - " more light yet," - and opened the doors to all upright, educated medical men. The power of expulsion the legislature disposed of in few words. In the original act of incorporation it gave the Fellows power to expel or disfranchise any Fellow. No one will claim that this power can be exercised arbitrarily or without just cause. Members of the Society have vested rights in 23 its property and franchise, and they have a reputation as members, and no majority vote can deprive them of it. The test of educa- tion and character having been once applied, some justifiable cause must be shown for taking away what the State has said " shall be " granted. In the case of Barrows against the Massa- chusetts Medical Society (reported in 12 Cushing, Rep. 402), Chief-Justice Shaw, while refusing a mandamus to compel the plaintiff's reinstatement, expressly put it upon the ground that the Society had shhwn gross immorality on the part of the petitioner in a professional transaction, and he strongly intimated if the So- ciety had acted in violation of his rights, from haste or prejudice, a mandamus would not have been refused.* The only causes for expulsion from a society of this description are, (1) conviction of an infamous crime by the civil tribunals ; (2) conduct inconsistent with the purposes and well-being of the society. The second head (2) is the only one for inquiry here. It is not enough that a committee of the Society may think our acts inconsistent with its purposes and well-being. The Society was not established by physicians of a certain school, believing or disbelieving a certain dogma, or dogmas, with the purpose of promoting the knowledge and practice of medicine in accordance with the theories of that school. It is not a homoeo- pathic, or an anti-homoeopathic society. It is an institution estab- lished and encouraged by public law, for public purposes, in which there is a right of membership upon certain established qualifica- tions, intellectual and moral, having for its object the promotion of the knowledge of anatomy, surgery, physiology and dietetics, and the nature and effects of medicines. It must be conducted upon " liberal principles," and must not discourage the freest inquiries and experiments of science, by putting upon its members the fet- ters of schools. The discrimination it is to make, as to membership, is not be- tween schools and theories and dogmas, but between the " duly educated and properly qualified," and those who "ignorantly and wickedly administer medicine." Membership of this Society by practising physicians and sur- geons, having the requisite moral and intellectual qualifications, is *In the expulsion of Dr. Ira Barrows from the Massachusetts Medical Society, we have always felt that the most gross injustice was done him. A prejudice was first created against him in the Society because he was a homoeopathist. It was decided, however, by the Councillors, that he could not be expelled on that charge, which was withdrawn, and one of " gross and notorious immorality," the term of the By-law, was subst - tuted. But the whole offence, and that not proved, was that he had tech- nically broken a pecuniary contract with another member of the Society, and one which the Courts would not sustain. By a similar process, it i s now proposed to expel us in a manner that shall leave the brand of " GUILTY OF DISHONORABLE CONDUCT/' Upon US. 24 a matter of public interest, and favored and secured by law. In construing the purposes and functions of the Society, you will look to the charter only, and not to the uncertain will of a majority of members, for the time being. As the courts have decided: "A member looks to the charter; in that he puts his trust, and not in the uncertain will of a majority of the members." We were admitted into the Society upon a decision that we had the requisite capacity, moral character, and scientific knowledge. We have continued in full membership, without objection on any of those points, to the present time, and for periods varying from forty years to fifteen years. There is now no charge made that we have ceased to possess the requisite knowledge and capacity for membership, or '' ignorantly or wickedly administer medicine." The charges and specifications do not affect our moral character, in any proper sense of the term. It is not alleged that we are guilty of any fraudulent practice, or of any false pretences ; as, for instance, that we hold ourselves out to the public as practising on one theory, and in fact practise upon another. The charges and specifications are consistent with an honest line of conduct, followed upon honest convictions, by men having the requisite intelligence and knowledge formembership of the Society. It is not alleged that homoeopathy is a false or dangerous, or even uncertain theory, but only that it is an " exclusive " theory. It is not alleged that the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society has any intention or has made any attempt to disorganize or destroy this Society. It is only charged that the Homoeopathic Society, from its being homoeopathic, is " at variance with and tends to " disorganize this Society. This is mere circumlocution. It is only saying that the Society is opposed to homoeopathy, and therefore the Homoeopathic Society must be at variance with it, and tend to disorganize it, and therefore all members of the Homoe- opathic Society are constructively guilty of an attempt to destroy this Society, although they may not intend it, or be conscious of it, or have done any act in that direction. Our prosecutors rely upon a By-law of the Society which it is said condemns homoeopathy. By-Law of 1860. " Hereafter no person shall be admitted a member of this Society, who professes to cure diseases by spirit- ualism, homoeopathy or Thompsonianism." In the first place this By-law relates to the admission of new members, and has no reference to the exclusion of members. The fact that the Society did not extend the disqualification to existing members ought to be treated as a judgment on their part that it was not lawful so to extend it. But let us call your attention to the history of this By-law. It was not adopted at a full meeting of the Society, which consists of about twelve hundred members, of whom some four or five hun- dred are usually present at the anniversary meetings, but at an 25 adjourned meeting, at which only nineteen were present, and it was passed in this little room by a vote of eleven to eight. The spirit in which hostile legislation has been carried by a few persons through this Society is well exemplified by the proceedings of May 25th, 1870 (see Medical Communications. 1870, pp. 158, 9). The By-laws required (By-law XXXII) that no alterations shall be made in the By-laws except at the adjournments of anniversary meetings. At the anniversary meeting of 1870, an adjournment was had for five minutes, and that was gravely treated as a com- pliance with the By-law; and at that adjourned meeting a resolu- tion was carried as the record shows " amid much confusion," that the Society " hereby expels from fellowship . . . homceopaths. hydropaths, eclectics, or what not." The good sense and regard for justice of this Society has treated that resolution as void. But, if the cause for expulsion is not sufficient in law, it cannot be made so by putting it in the form of a By-law or resolution. All By-laws must be (1) in harmony not only with statute law, but with the spirit of the common law, (2) in accordance with the pur- poses and nature of the charter of the institution chartered ; (3) reasonable in their operation on the rights of members. This point has been uniformly established by the courts. If this Society cannot lawfully expel a member for practising vaccination, it cannot do so by passing a By-law prohibiting vac- cination, and expelling him for breach of the By-law. If they can- not expel a member for any given practice, they cannot do so by declaring the practice dishonorable and tending to disorganize the Society, and expel the member for constructive dishonor, or a constructive attempt against the Society. Discarding all subterfuges, and constructive offences, and circu- ities, we ask you to look this charge directly in the face, and to deal with it honestly. It is simply this : Our accusers say to us, " You have the requisite intelligence, education, and skill to be members of this Society. There is no imputation upon your moral character. You are practising openly what you believe to be medical science. In that you are encouraged and sanctioned by the Commonwealth in terms as strong as those by which the Med- ical School of Harvard University is sanctioned. We do not charge you with an intention to injure this society, or with having con- sciously attempted to injure it. We do not charge you with any- thing actually dishonorable. You practise homoeopathy. We do not believe in homoeopathy, and therefore we mean to expel you. In order to do so we are obliged to resort to a little subterfuge and indirect pretence. To give a fair color to our proceeding, and bring it within the terms of the By-laws, we are obliged to call it an attempt to injure the Society, and conduct unworthy an honor able physician. But the only real charge is that you practise POWER AND EFFECT OF BY-LAWS. 26 homoeopathy. The only real question is whether for that you can be expelled from the Society." It is established law in Massachusetts that homoeopathy is med- icine ; and that a person fit to practise medicine on the theory of homoeopathy, is entitled to a degree in medicine, and to practise medicine, and to hold himself out to the community as a practi- tioner in medicine. The Act of 1867, ch. 27, to incorporate the New'England Homoeopathic Medical College provides, in section 3, as follows : " The trustees, together with the regularly consti- tuted officers of the New England Homoeopathic Medical College, shall have power to confer the degree of doctor in medicine, sub- ject to the restrictions and regulations which are adopted and required in conferring the same degree by Harvard College and the Berkshire Medical Institution." The degree is not of doctor in homoeopathic medicine, but of " doctor in medicine." It is to the same effect, and carrying with it the same declaration, with a degree of doctor of medicine given by Harvard College, or the Berkshire Medical College. The legislature of this Commonwealth has encouraged homoeopathy by incorporating hospitals and dis- pensaries and medical colleges based upon homoeopathy exclusively (Acts 1855, ch. 411 ; 1856, ch. 191, 251 ; 1867, ch. 27). This Society, from which our accusers hope to expel us, derives its character and all its powers from the same legislature. The legislature has not made it an allopathic or an anti-homoeopathic medical society. The legislature has made it a medical society in the broadest terms. And the same legislature has declared that homoeopathy is medicine, the practice of homoeopathy is the prac- tice of medicine, and that the degrees given by the Homoeopathic Medical College are degrees in medicine generally in the same manner as the degrees given by Harvard College. You cannot expel us for practising homoeopathy without violating the charter on which the Society rests. You cannot legally, by however large a majority, change it to an allopathic or anti-homoeopathic society. The law will not permit you to say that homoeopathy is not medi- cine. HOMOEOPATHY SANCTIONED BY LAW. HOMOEOPATHY RECOGNIZED BY OTHER STATES AND THE NATION. Homoeopathy has been recognized as medicine by the highest public authorities in other states and countries. There are incorporated homoeopathic medical State societies in the following States : Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa- chusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan. Also, in the following, the State societies are probably incorporated: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Kansas. Besides these eighteen State societies, there are more than sixty 27 local or county societies in active operation, many of which are incorporated. In New York, at the time when this effort is being made to ostracize us, some of your confreres are endeavoring to unite the two schools in one society. HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES. There exist also the following incorporated homoeopathic medical colleges: Pennsylvania, 1 ; New York, 2 ; Ohio, 2 ; Illinois, 1 ; Missouri, 1 ; Michigan, 1 ; Massachusetts, 1. In addition, the Michigan legislature has passed a law ordering the appointment of two professors of homoeopathy in the Michigan University, and the Boston University has just established its Medical Department under homoeopathic auspices. INCORPORATED HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITALS. The following homoeopathic hospitals have been chartered by State legislatures, and have been established: Massachusetts, 1 ; New York, 7 ; Pennsylvania, 2 ; Ohio, 2 ; Illinois, 3 ; Missouri, 1. Besides these there are upwards of twenty other hospitals or asylums under homoeopathic care in the United States, in which homoeopathy is permitted or required by law. INCORPORATED HOMOEOPATHIC DISPENSARIES. There are twenty of these of considerable size, in active opera- tion, and a large number of smaller ones which do not assume a corporate organization. In one of the homoeopathic dispensaries in New York city 41,714 patients were treated last year, 7,384 visits were made, and 84,648 prescriptions were given, making it one of the largest, if not the largest, dispensary in the country. The principle of homoeopathy was first enunciated by Hahne- mann in 1796. It was twenty-nine years after this, in 1825, before its first advocate in this country, Dr. Gram, came to America. The opposition and ridicule which was exhibited by the profession pre- vented its careful study and examination by them, and in fifteen years, in 1840, there were scarcely a hundred physicians believing it in the United States In 1848 a medical school was chartered in Philadelphia for the teaching of its principles, and since that time its growth has been rapid until, as you have seen, it has become a power in the land. Already more than five thousand physicians have adopted its principles, and practise in accordance therewith. It has gone into every circle of intelligence and refinement, and is esteemed in proportion to the intimate experience with it. THE EXTENT OF THE PRACTICE OF HOMCEOPATHY. LITERATURE OF HOMCEOPATHY. There are of homoeopathic journals, published and well-supported in the United States alone, three quarterlies, seven monthlies, and one bi-monthly. Not less than one thousand volumes have been 28 published relating to homoeopathic medicine ; and more have been issued during the past year than ever before in the same time. I here present for your examination, as showing the broad scope of them, three volumes but just issued : - Tbe first, a book of 239 pages on Ophidians, is an exhaustive treatise on serpents and their poison; the next a volume of 544 pages, issued in Detroit, Mich., is an elaborate and careful study of 160 new remedies recently proved upon the healthy human system, and introduced into the materia mcdica; the third is perhaps the handsomest and most complete work on Veterinary Medicine ever issued. It is a large octavo of 658 pages, and carefully describes every form of disease found in domestic animals. Thus showing that homoeopathy is not alone applicable to creatures with imagi- nation, but has won other triumphs. ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING HOMCEOPATHISTS. I might call to your mind the dismissal by our national govern- ment of Dr. Van Aernam, commissioner of pensions, for the sole reason that he removed subordinates on account of homoeopathic belief; also the subsequent reinstatement by the government of the men removed by him. So, also, within the year past our State gov- ernment has had under commission as militia surgeon and assistant surgeons, three men who were known to be homoeopathists. The time, therefore, is past, when you may think to ostracize men for adopting the homoeopathic belief and practice in medicine. CONDITION OF HOMOEOPATHY IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. In Europe, where, thirty years ago, we were told that it was dying out, homoeopathy was never so extensively practised as now. More than thirty hospitals and asylums have adopted this practice. There are upwards of two hundred practitioners of it in Paris alone. It is taught in several universities by a distinct chair. In Saxony, for several years, every pharmacy has been compelled to maintain a separate homoeopathic department. In the German army are many homoeopathists. Among them the philosophic Grauvogl, noted for his work on the science of Homoeopathy, occupies a high position. In every court in Europe homoeopathy has been introduced, and is used by a fair proportion of the nobil- ity and gentry, as well as by men of letters, and families of the largest influence and intelligence. In Brazil, and some portions of South America, it has already become the prevailing or " orthodox " practice. It has been favor- ably introduced among the nations of China and Hindostan, and a handsome monthly is issued in Calcutta. In Australia, a homoeo- pathic hospital has been established, and in New Zealand a ho- moeopathic medical journal is published. But here, in New England, in Boston, in the year 1873, an attempt is made to brand as " guilty of conduct unbecoming and 29 unworthy an honorable physician," fellow-members of your Society, of admitted intelligence and character, because they practise medi- cine in that way ! WHAT IS HOMCEOPATHY? We have been treated, here and elsewhere, to certain opinions quoted from Hahnemann's Organon, to show what homoeopathy is. These would be in evidence, if it were proved that they were the opinions of the persons accused, or that the Organon was to ho- meopathists a book of which they acknowledged the plenary inspi- ration. and whose every word was of binding force upon them. But that is not pretended ; and, if it were, the pretence could be easily disproved. That the Organon is a book which contains many truths, and statements worthy of careful consideration by every physician, we cheerfully acknowledge ; but, at the same time, no men, or class of men, are compelled to subscribe to its opinions or to accept its errors. Dr. Hering, the distinguished homoeopathist of Philadelphia, makes use of the following language respecting Hahnemann's theories, in his prefatory remarks to the American edition of the Organon: " For myself, I am generally considered a disciple of Hahnemann, and 1 do indeed declare that I am one among the most enthusiastic in doing homage to his greatness; but nevertheless, I declare also, that since my first acquaintance with homoeopathy (in the year 1821), down to the present day, I have never yet accepted a single theory in the Organon as there promulgated. . . . Who- ever, therefore will assail the theories of Hahnemann, or even altogether reject them, is at perfect liberty to do- so ; but let him not imagine that be has thereby accomplished a memorable achieve- ment. In every respect it is an affair of little importance.'' If everything written by the so-called u wise men " on medicine were to be taken as evidence of present views, we could delve into the past medical writings and show you opinions and practices which would make your cheeks tingle with shame, that such things could be. We would not have to go back far to the time when physicians relied for cure on such compounds as the all-powerful Theriaca of Andro- machus, with its sixty-one ingredients, the most essential of which was the dried flesh of vipers ; or when the Mithridate, of royal renown and equal complexity, held omnipotent swray over disease ; or still later, when, according to the dispensatories of the day, there were mixed, or jumbled together, in a single dose as many as three hundred and eighty-eight different drugs and crude substances, from many of which regard for decency will not allow the conceal- ment of a dead language to be removed. The past condition of the medical profession has been wrell stated by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, in his address before this Society in 18G0, on the Currents and Counter-currents in Medical 30 Science, showed the abuses it has clung to, and the absurdities it has fostered, and, considering the injury it has done in the past, and the little good it accomplishes in the present, he said, " Throw out opium . . . throw out a few specifics, which our art did not discover, . . . throw out wine, which is a food, and the vapors which produce the miracle of anaesthesia, and I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica as now used [the italics are his] could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind, - and all the worse for the fishes." Dr. James Rush, of Philadelphia, a distinguished physician, says : " Upon these points, and bearing in mind that we have now in medicine the recorded practice of more than two thousand years, let the reader refer to the proceedings of the medical profession during the prevalence of the so-called 'Asiatic cholera,' and he will find their history everywhere exhibiting an extraordinary pic- ture of prefatory panic, vulgar wonder, doubt, ignorance, obtrusive vanity, plans for profit and popularity, fatal blunders, distracting contradictions, and egregious empiricisms." When we consider the fiercely conflicting sects which in the his- tory of medicine are recalled by the names of Dogmatist; Theorist, or Rationalist; Empiric, or Experimentalist; Eclectic, Gymnast, Atomist, Methodist, Pneumatist, Chemist, or Mineralist; Botanist, Anatomist, Derivatist, Casual Indicist, or latro-mathematist,-when we recall how humoral pathology gave way to solidism, and that in turn to vitalism, and both yielded to animism, - how the rational- ism of Hoffman and the eclecticism of Boerhaave were displaced by the dynamic theory of Cullen, and that by the sthenic and asthenic theories of Brown, - we may say with Girtanner, "As medical science has no firm principles, as nothing in it is fixed or settled, as there is but little certain authentic experience, it follows that every physician has the right to follow his own opinion." And in this state of medical matters, when we are told even by this pros- ecuting committee, that this society has no system binding on its members, are we forbidden to believe what we think is true, or to practise what we believe ? We have been told what homoeopathy is by the prosecuting com- mittee ; and by the definition it was evident that they were very ignorant concerning it. I must claim the privilege of correcting their vague definition, and of stating in a few words what homoeopathy is ; and I begin by telling what it is not. 1st. Homoeopathy is not infinitesimal doses. 2d. Homoeopathy is not the doctrine of psora, nor any other theory, in regard to the nature and origin of disease. Homoeopathy is, or is based upon, a general principle in medicine, that all drugs possess the power of removing from the human sys- tem symptoms similar to those which they are capable of producing in it; and this principle, as expressed by the Latin aphorism 31 Similia similibus curantur, is by some considered a great law of nature for the control of disease. What are its boundaries, or where are its limits, remains yet to be determined. From this, then, follows naturally, 1st. That to obtain knowledge of the effects of drugs upon the human system, experiments must be made with them in health. 2d. That to obtain the exact effect of a drug, it must be ad- ministered pure and unmixed. From these has resulted, by experiment, the following discovery : 3d. That small doses of a drug will remove symptoms similar to those which the same drug will produce. It has been sometimes said that the infinitesimal size of the homoeopathic dose carried with it so much of absurdity that any one believing in it must be either a fool or a knave. Pause ere you act upon such an assertion, or suffer your minds to be prejudiced thereby. The size of the dose has nothing what- ever to do with the principles of homoeopathy. The proper dose is to be found only by experiment; and every homoeopathist, and every member of the Homoeopathic Medical Society has a perfect liberty and right to make these experiments, and use doses of any size which he chooses. But so many times have these experiments been repeated, that it has come to be an accepted fact that they cure best in such quantities as shall not produce any toxic or poisonous effects, or aggravation of the symptoms already existing. If the millionth part of a grain will cure better than a hundred grains, is not the physician bound to use the smaller dose? But before you decide upon the utter inertness of the minutest quantity, let me remind you of the recent experiments and dem- onstrations of M. Davaine, before the French Academy, on the subject of Septicaemia. From these experiments, which have since been verified, it is seen that the ten trillionth part of a drop actually destroyed life when injected into the veins of a Guinea- Pig- Now, a tank to hold ten trillion drops must have, according to Simpson, an area of 2,500 square miles and a uniform depth of 300 feet. It might hold the waters of ten such lakes as Champ- lain ; and one drop would be raised by it to the sixth centesimal dilution. With this testimony, who can longer dispute the power of infinitesimals? And the demonstration of its power to kill, if it does not show its curative power, at least relieves from the opprobrium of inertness. Homoeopathy is founded on a certain fixed principle or law. The precise explanation of the manner in w'hich its remedies act, whether by the so-called Substitutive Method of Trousseau or that of Electric Affinity is unimportant, and all theories in regard to the origin and nature of disease are foreign to it, and belong only to individual opinion. 32 In accordance with this law, medicines must be given for pre- cisely such symptoms as they are capable of producing. Thus, in disease of the head, a medicine is required which affects the head, not the stomach; if the stomach is disordered, one acting on that organ rather than on the skin. And the medicine must act, not in a general manner upon the organ, but upon that particular portion of it which is diseased. It is useless to administer a medicine which affects only the mucous membrane of the stomach, when either the muscular coat, or the nervous filaments of that organ are the seat of disease. It must also have the power of producing an effect upon the organ similar to the disease. Syncope may be occasioned alike by anemia or hyperemia ; but, if by the former, it would be wholly useless to administer a medicine which produces plethora. Temperament, age, sex, disposition, temperature, and many other conditions, require to be taken into account by the physician ; but they do not in the least change the character of the law. So far we have a theory merely, but fortunately one that can easily lie put to the test. Let me ask these my associates " on trial," let me ask the five thousand homceopathic practitioners in the United States if they have not frequently seen a decided and marked curative effect from a minute dose of Aconite in fever, Ipe- cacuanha in vomiting, Mercury in diarrhoea, Coffee in sleeplessness, Belladonna and Glonoine in headache, Hepar sulphuris in croup, Arnica in injuries, and Chamomilla in many diseases of infancy. I know well that their answer will be, " Most assuredly we have ; " and proof of this character might be obtained in thousands upon thousands of cases. Even the most bitter opponents of homoeopa- thy are finding this out slowly, and, like Sidney Ringer, are giving medicine homoeopathically - but " on physiological principles ! " This principle in medicine has been hinted at from the time of Hippocrates by most thoughtful writers, but it remained for Hahnemann to seize upon the idea, and, by the devotion of forty years of his long life in studying the poisonous effects of drugs upon his own system, to develop a new materia medica, which has so far proved a permanent one. If, during this long life, which reached to almost ninety, Hahnemann, in his enthusiasm, said anything untrue or unwise, are we, who accept the truths he developed, to be held responsible therefor? It was to examine these statements and to develop these truths, which are of a strictly scientific and in no sense of a partisan char- acter, that this Homoeopathic Society was formed in 1840. not " at variance with" nor " tending to disorganize the Massachusetts Medi cal Society," but as a principal in and supplementary to the So ciety. in accomplishing a work which the Society, properly cover- ing the whole domain of medicine, has, to the present time, contin- ued to neglect, "and this special society has faithfully done its 33 work. It has investigated this branch of the healing art, has made provings of hitherto unknown drugs, - and, since its formation, that little band of only five persons in New England, has increased more than a hundred fold. But we, as members of that Society, are bound by no pledge, either direct or implied, that we will practise medicine only in accordance with a certain exclusive theory or dogma. Our only professional pledge is to cure our patients by the best means in our power; and whenever' you can show us anything better than homoeopathy, be assured that we shall not hesitate to accept it. For this purpose, we claim to stand, as physicians, ready to receive any new truths ; and we ask you to be as ready to examine what we have so carefully studied and believe to be true. So far as I know it has never yet been claimed for homoeopathy that it had reached perfection. All that it attempts in medical science is the application of drugs to the cure of disease. It is limited to the vital or dynamic sphere. In the purely mechanical or surgical appliances, in dietetics, in hygiene, in much that goes to make up the practice of the physician, homoeopathy is not applicable, and every physician must here use his best judgment. So too with an- aesthesia, and chemical antidotes in poisoning. Still further than this I go, - and I think every member of the Homoeopathic Society will agree with me, - when it is clearly proved that any drug or remedy in any case or form whatever, is the best thing for a patient, it is the physician's duty to his patient and to his profession to ad- minister such remedy, but until such a demonstration is given, it is equally his duty to give what he thinks is best, be it homoeopathic, allopathic, or heteropathic. The community are sufferers by all the quarrels, piques and, jeal- ousies among physicians, and often to the extent of loss of life. Such discords are softened and removed by free social intercourse with men of differing views. And this humanizing influence is one of the great aims of the Massachusetts Medical Society, where- by the benefit of the whole people of the State is sought. Now, if bigotry erect barriers between educated, honorable men, that action is, in itself, " at variance with, and tends to disorganize, the Mas- sachusetts Medical Society," and even now, as all confess, threat- ens its very existence. And who, then, are the offenders? If you proceed to expel the accused, or to recommend their ex- pulsion, you will not only be acting in violation of law, but, as we believe, offend the sympathy and good judgment of the community, against the advice of the most honored members of this Society. In 1850, a committee, composed of Doctors George Hayward, J. B. S. Jackson, and O. W. Holmes, made a report from which it would seem that at that time a member could not even resign his membership by reason of holding to the principles of homoeopathy. That committee recommended that homoeopathists be permitted to resign. Referring to the general abandonment of all theories there- 34 tofore adopted by allopathic physicians, as humoral pathology or solidism. and the successive theories or schools of Boerhaave. Cul- len, Hoffman, Brown, Rust, and Broussais ; and the wide openings of science in all directions, the report commends the Society to do no more than to avoid giving positive sanction to homoeopathy. In 1854. a committee was appointed on a resolution offered by a Dr. Spofford, recommending the expulsion of homoeopathists. That committee reported through Dr. Jacob Bigelow, and the report was adopted by the Councillors, and is to-day of binding force upon the Society. (See Modern Inquiries, by Jacob Bigelow, M.D.. p. 326 ) It begins with the following striking paragraph : "The Massachusetts Medical Society was incorporated mainly for the purpose of establishing a proper standard of medical edu- cation, and of ensuring a competent degree of knowledge among those who should be authorized to practise the profession of medi- cine in this Commonwealth ; and we are not aware that the Society possesses any power to coerce men, after they have been thus edu- cated and qualified, to embrace or renounce any theoretical opin- ions or modes of practice which they may innocently believe." This declaration, from so high a source, may well lead this Board to reflect deeply before lending themselves to this prosecu- tion. The whole report we earnestly commend to their consideration. Among other things it charges the system opposite to homoeopa- thy usually called the "heroic," as alike productive of evil to the patients. It recommends the Society to trust to the lessons of time rather than to weapons of warfare. We also refer you to the address of Henry J. Bigelow, M.D., in the Medical Communications of 1871, p. 181, especially pp. 234-6, warning this Society against being led to unwise courses by the American Medical Association We next call your attention to a report or " representation" to the American Medical Association, by a committee of the Council- lors of the Massachusetts Medical Society (see Medical Commu- nications for 1871, vol XL, No. 5, Proceedings of the Councillors, pp. 203-9). This, I understand, was unanimously adopted It admits that the Society has no power to adopt by-laws, except such as are reasonable, and that the courts of law, and not the Society, are to judge of the reasonableness. It takes the ground that members, having passed the examination and established their legal right as Fellows of the Society, do not render themselves liable to expulsion by afterwards engaging " in the practice of medicine according to some exclusive dogma, such as homoeopathy." Although they denounce homoeopathy in terms that show them very hostile to it, they seem fully aware of the danger of violating their charter and being rebuked by the courts of law, if they attempt to expel homoeopathists as such. To their honorable minds the device did not suggest itself, to which our accusers have resorted, of declaring homoeopathy dishonorable and then trying 35 us. not for homoeopathy, but for dishonor. They also condemn the resolution of this society above referred to, adopted May 25,1870, undertaking to expel homoeopathists. They say, " This resolution was passed near the close of meeting, amid much noise and con- fusion, and is, of course, of no legal binding force." This whole report is in many respects one of the most careful and thorough ever made to the Society, and I must recommend its considerate perusal not only to you but to every member of the Society on whom, as it was unanimously adopted by the Counc ilors acting for the whole Society, its statements are of binding force. It will ever be a strange chapter in this Society's history that a body which could adopt such a report, thereby giving it binding force, should, almost in the same breath, commence or even allow these proceedings in violation of it. But while I am surprised that these charges have under such circumstances been made, I am still more surprised at the entire absence of any attempt on the part of the prosecutors to sustain them by any evidence. There has not been presented an iota of proof which coidd be admitted in any court of law. The state- ment of a prosecuting officer is not evidence. The belief that the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is at variance with and tends to disorganize this Society, does not make it true. If we go back to the disgraceful scene in the beginning of this trial,- November 21, 1871,- when the chairman of these prosecu- tors, in a bombastic and offensive manner, gave us his opinion of homoeopathy - which we all knew to be false - and mixed this with low and vulgar jest and insult, we cannot for a moment sup- pose that this Board will look upon that as evidence. And in the present stage of the trial, when the only remaining one of the five prosecutors presents similar opinions, though in a manner most courteous and unobjectionable, and clothed in words prepared by one of the most acute legal minds of this Common- wealth, you cannot accept this as evidence. Nor can you take the words written by Hahnemann a half century ago and apply them to us, and assume them to be our opinions at the present time. Neither can you, on the prosecutors' statement, and without proof, decide that the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is antagonistic to, and tends to disorganize and destroy, the Massa- chusetts Medical Society, and that membership of both is incom- patible. On the other hand, there has been evidence presented, that there has never been any attempt on the part of the persons accused to disorganize or destroy this Society. That though members of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, yet that Society has never sought by any act, either directly or indirectly, to injure, dis- organize, or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society; that the THE EVIDENCE. 36 accused had always been faithful and efficient members of this Massachusetts Medical Society, and were in no way guilty of the charges and specifications as made, and were entitled by the char- ter and by-laws of the Society to a full and complete acquittal. Examine in detail the evidence introduced by the accused, and you will see - 1. That the Homoeopathic Society is established by law, and that membership of it cannot be treated as an offence, much less a crime for which expulsion from a legal society becomes the penalty. 2. That homoeopathy has again and again been pronounced a legitimate system of medicine in this State by the people in Gen- eral Court assembled. 3. That the accused have always been good and faithful mem- bers of the Massachusetts Medical Society, as shown by the evi- dence of the officers of this Society. The testimony of the accused, and it could have been confirmed by a hundred additional witnesses, but that your Board ruled that cumulative evidence on this point was not necessary, has fully proved that all these charges and specifications are untrue. 4. That the accused have never, individually or collectively, attempted to disorganize or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society. 5. That the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society has never in any manner, or by any act, attempted to disorganize or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society. 6. That the accused are not now, and never have been, pledged to practise medicine in accordance with any "exclusive theory or dogma " ; but that they seek only the best method of curing their patients. 7. That the accused have been, severally, good and faithful members of the Massachusetts Medical Society for terms varying from sixteen to forty-eight years, and have in that time regularly contributed to the maintenance of the Society, and to its funds and property. With the entire absence of evidence against the accused, and with the mass of positive proof that they have never sought to disorganize or destroy the Massachusetts Medical Society, only by the greatest perversion of your powers as a Board of Trial, could you pronounce them GUILTY. Gentlemen: While I was meditating how to frame the defence of my friend against these charges, the first thing that struck me was the singular character of the trial. Indeed as I look back at what has taken place here, I am amazed at the unfairness, might I not characterize it still more severely, of the whole proceedings. We may fairly claim that such a trial, if this proceeding deserve the name, is as unprecedented as it is unjustifiable. 37 WHO ARE THE MEN ON TRIAL? Look at the character and standing of the accused, and the methods adopted by this singular tribunal. Dr. William Bushnell, a man of singular purity of character and life, who after faithful study under approved teachers has conscien- tiously performed the duties of his profession, and whom the breath of slander has never touched ; Dr. Milton Fuller, a favorite student with the elder Dr. Town- send, a painstaking pupil in a school of acknowledged ability, who has for more than forty years devoted himself to his profession with universal acceptance, and finds himself now, for the first time in his life, charged with conduct unbecoming a gentleman and a physician ; Dr. H. L. H. Hoffendahl, who graduated from Harvard Univer- sity with the leading honors of his class, and who has brought the severe training and broad culture of the University into the service of the profession, and whose reputation is such as may well be envied ; Dr. Samuel Gregg, who for nearly half a century, day and night, devoted himself to the welfare of his patients, among whom were some of our foremost men in professional and mercantile life, glad to trust to his intuitive skill and educated sagacity their own lives and those of their families, but who in early professional life was compelled to join this Society, in order to have the benefit of con- sulting with its members, and at a time when he was so poor that even the ten dollars required for membership was a serious tax on his scanty resources. Here in his old age, after having done all that the Society could even ask of a member, after having honored the Society, as few men are privileged to do, by a life of rare use- fulness and deserved success, after having believed and practised in accordance with the homoeopathic principles for more than thirty years, he was to be expelled and dishonored on the accusation of men belonging to a generation which was in its cradle when he was watching at the bedside of some of our noblest citizens, their trusted counsellor, to whose skill and care they acknowledged that they owed health and life ; Dr. George Russell, now nearly fourscore years of age, the good physician of three successive generations, whose professional success testifies for him, and whose uprightness, honesty, and integ- rity are unimpeachable; Dr. David Thayer, whose professional skill has not only been rewarded with a large practice and the well-earned confidence of a wide and influential circle, but wdiose admitted ability and integ- rity have advanced him to many places of public trust; Dr. Benj. H. West, whose character as a scholar, as a physician, and as a public man, needs no eulogy here. 38 These are the men whom you seek to brand as guilty of a crime worthy of expulsion, from whom you would take rights given them by the State; whom you would deprive of property which they themselves have helped to contribute to the Society and to science. In a matter of so great importance yon will allow me briefly to review the manner of conducting the trial of such physicians as these. Without ever having, by word or deed, sought the injury of the Society, never having introduced into it any disturbing ques- tion, these men are summoned before a so-called Board of Trial, and charged with guilt. This Board becomes at once juror, judge, and executioner. In the first part of the trial they are in constant communication and consultation with the prosecuting committee; charges too vague to base any proceedings upon, or even to admit of an answer, are brought before them ; and the proceedings are only arrested by an injunction from the Supreme Court. The Court refuses to express its opinion. Again the trial begins with old charges amended, new charges introduced in such a manner that the Board itself is unable to tell us whether the trial is before the old Board on the old charges, the old Board on the charges amend- ed, the old Board on the new charges, or before a new Board on the old charges, a new Board on the old charges amended, or a new Board on the new charges, or the old and the new Boards amalga- mated on each or all of these. If there was any pertinency in the stale, rude stoiy, told by the chairman of your prosecuting com- mittee. of the Little Joker, first here, then there, and then nowhere, it surely applies best and closest to this trial and these charges. Although clothed with full powers to grant our reasonable re- quests. this Board refuses to allow the friends of the accused, not members of the Society, to be present; refuses to allow the press to report its proceedings ; refuses to allow a sworn reporter, selec- ted by both parties, to make a verbatim report of the proceedings ; refuses to allow the persons accused to employ a reporter to do so; refuses to allow a clerk or amanuensis to sit beside them and take notes; though it employs, as clerk and recorder of all its doings, for its own private use, the secretary of the Society, who sits with them in secret session ; refuses to allow legal counsel in a matter affecting property and character; refuses to allow counsel to be present even to advise; refuses to allow any challenge of said jurors and members of the board of trial, even if known to be per- sons prejudiced and determined to convict. And yet, this is called a Trial I Call it rather a Star-Chamber Council, inspired by envy and malice, determined, in some way or other, to punish their fellows, and well aware that the end could not be reached by any means which fair play and the law allow ; by any means which would bear THE MANNER OF THE TRIAL. 39 the light; which the public would not condemn, if the public could see all that is done. I am well aware that what has been said here will have little effect upon the ultimate result; but bear in mind that the spirit which incited this trial and the manner in which it has been con- ducted, the secrets which have not been kept within these closed and doubly-guarded doors, will be written in characters more en- during than your lives, will be spread before an audience a thou- sand fold larger than could come within this hall. And while you may fancy that we are the men on trial, you will find that it is yourselves who are passing through an ordeal, of which the verdict will be rendered by those for whose benefit our profession is estab- lished. Do not think that the disgrace of such proceedings will rest on our honored Mother, the Massachusetts Medical Society. No, gentlemen, we shall always refuse to believe that your proceedings thus far have been sustained by the honest judgment of that Society, which was founded by honorable men, inspired by a liberal and catholic spirit. However you may decide this question, we have lit- tle to fear. All history shows that truth is helped by narrow and malignant attacks upon her. She gains more from the malice of her enemies than even from the ability of her friends. Harvey was ridiculed ; Jenner was denounced by the profession which now cherishes his name as its proudest title to the gratitude and confi- dence of the community. Already we have proof that coming generations will have reason to be thankful for the unsuccessful assault upon us last year. The cordial sympathy and world-wide notice it got for us, poured into our hands the means to found and most liberally endow a Homoeopathic Hospital to relieve the suffer- ings of future generations. o o Go on then, gentlemen, render such verdict as you may think proper. But the result of this trial will be to give us still larger and kinder support. A second wave of public sympathy will found a University for the study of our system, and to prepare for us successors, still better fitted than we are to serve that large and growing portion of a community which accepts no dictation as to what system it shall favor ; which has made up its mind, after trying the allopathic method for centuries, that homoeopathy better suits the human system - that it is amply able to treat any dis- ease, and is in all cases efficient and trustworthy. If you, gentlemen, can afford to contribute thus lavishly to our success, we surelyjshould not quarrel with the prominence and pop- ularity you give us. 40 DR. WEST'S DEFENCE. The Massachusetts Medical Society has rights, to be respected by all its members. A principal right is that of making by-laws for the promotion of its objects. In the enactment of by-laws, it is not absolute, but must conform to the fundamental principles of justice, and the basis on which the legislature, which gave it a charter, itself rests It cannot violate any principle of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the State. It cannot, contrary to, or in disregard of these, deprive a Fellow of the Society of any of his rights to character or property. The 24th Section of the Bill of Rights is as follows : - " Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government." " Seci. 12. No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally described to him, or be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favor- able to him, to meet the witnesses against him, face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself or his counsel, at his election; and no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled or deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. And the legislature shall not make any law, that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, except for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury." Of the Constitution of the United States, the first Article in the third clause of Section 9, reads : " No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." Of the Amendments, this is Article I: -• " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " Article 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other- wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any per- son be subject for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use with- out just compensation." The resolution passed by this Society June 7, lb71, which is made the basis of complaint or accusation, seems to me an ex post faito law, because it refers to acts done before the existence of the 41 law, it having been made on purpose to strike those who had for a long time previously done similar acts, perfectly and clearly within their power, and not contrary to the laws of the Society. This resolution also aims at depriving a Fellow of his property, immunities and privileges, without a proper trial, by providing that the Board of Trial shall adjudicate the case, substantially making the Board judge, jury, and executioner. The resolution of the Society set out to strike a blow at the char- acter and fame of a Fellow, and, in so far as it can, disgrace, and render him infamous, by depriving him of his position as a regular, and hence publicly authorized, physician, without trial by jury. The resolution attempts to interfere with the freedom of speech, by threatening the reputation of any Fellow who shall declare his confidence in a mode of managing disease, which has already com- mended itself to the confidence of a very considerable part of the best minds in the State, and which constantly asks for the careful consideration of all men, especially those devoted to therapeutics. The law disputes the right of private judgment, and practically denies that freedom of thought inseparable from, but indispensable to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To the assertion and maintenance of this freedom of thought and judgment, the entire history of the Anglo-Saxon race, since the days of the Magna Charta, tends ; noris this race alone in this ten- dency. With us, there is no national or established church or religion. Although theology may assume to hold some doctrines as cer- tain,- as, for example, the existence of a God, the consciousness of the soul, the belief in a future existence, - yet no man is held responsible for scepticism. In government or political science a similar condition obtains. The feudal system has perished. The vassal no longer serves his lord. The king, himself, finds it hard to write, with its original force, Dei Gratia Rex. Alexander no longer rules over serfs. The troops of the United States return slaves to Southern masters no more. Freedom of body implies and necessitates freedom of mind. This freedom is guaranteed by the writ of habeas corpus and other legal appliances, especially the constitutional provision securing freedom of speech and the liberty of the press : the opportunity of printing and uttering conclusions obtained through freedom of thought. This freedom is indispensable for the security of the individual, in investigating new or reviewing old ideas. The Constitution secures every individual in his rights of prop- erty. Is not his mind more than gold? It secures him the right to vote. Is not the vote an expression of opinion ; must he not be at liberty to form his opinion? May he not change his opinion? Every man has this right. He is obliged to exercise it. The child believes the sky very near him, and the earth a plane ; - the 42 child grown and instructed, knows the earth a spheroid, and the sky, vast space. The uneducated thinks water a simple substance, the educated knows it a compound. All the professors of all the universities of earth have, since I became a member of this Soci- ety, enlarged their knowledge and so formed, modified, or changed their opinions, by the discoveries of Daguerre and the invention of Morse. Whose opinions, among the ablest of men. have undergone in the same period, no change as to the applicability of steam in navigating the sea and traversing the land? In the diffusion of intelligence, what would the opinions of men of only forty years ago, now be worth? Nay, of what confidence were the estimates of the authors of our recent civil war worthy, - on which they risked life and all they valued? Did not events compel a change of opin- ion? Eighteen hundred years ago, the Roman emperors, holding in their grasp the civil and military powers of the world, ten times put those powers to their utmost tension, to prevent changes of opinion, and failed. The Inquisition played its part in a similar drama; yet the cremadura of Spain and the faggot of Smithfield, alike, came short of their object. The massacre of St. Bartholo- mew's, instead of making France a unit for Catholicism, finds its sequel in the philosophic period of Voltaire, and the histories of the red revolution and Vendee. The fearful scenes in the valleys of Piedmont are the preludes of the siege of Rome ; and the lamenta- tions of the Waldenses have their echo in the roar of the cannon of Garibaldi at Menabrea. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of petition. What does this imply, other than the existence of a grievance and the possibility of its removal ? How shall the griev- ance be examined, but by minds appointed for its investigation, - minds to be enlightened, convinced, nay, it may be. changed, and then advising appropriate action? Where the force, nay, where the sense of this constitutional provision, but in the existence of the right to modify or change opinion ? There is somewhere in an old book this passage : - " Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord." And one other : " Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die ? " Were the men addressed not at liberty to exercise freedom of thought or will ? In our country, what is the result of antagonism to its exercise ? Let two instances furnish a sufficient answer : - A respectable mob in this city endangered the life of the grand opponent of slavery - yet he lives, honored and enriched by the voluntary gifts of freemen ; and his assailants and their successors are in unison with him. Who were they that, within forty years, despite the Constitution, sought to deny to the people the right of petition, and to expel from the House of Representatives its great defender, although he had been President of the United States? What was the result? John Quincy Adams sleeps in an honored 43 grave, while over the land the right which he maintained is more widely accepted than ever before. Where are his assailants ? Now, if, as I have shown, a man have the right to his opinion, and be at liberty to change it in matters of science, art, law, morals, and theology, has he any less right in the special matter of medicine? Is medicine a science so complete, an art so perfect, as to admit of no change of opinion or act? Is a regular physician a petrifaction ? I remonstrate against the resolution of the Massachusetts Medical Society as being founded on ignorance of the subject legislated upon, and hence being an invasion of the right of private judg- ment ; a proof of the neglect by the Society of the duty to inves- tigate ; and an outrage of the right of the people to the fullest exercise of the mental power of its chartered custodians of the public health. If the positions taken above be true, is not the resolution or by- law of the Society on which this suit rests, a violation of the funda- mental principles of our social system, our government - State and national, - nay, of the laws of the mind itself, and hence inoperative ? I believe that the positions are correct, and hence deny the authority of the law. The Society has the right to summon before it a Fellow accused of violating its laws. Every Fellow will doubtless respond to such summons, hastening to answer any call from associates so worthy of respect and esteem. He doubtless will have the accusation fully and clearly set forth, and be confronted with the witnesses against him. Doubtless he will have a full opportunity of defend- ing himself. But the Society is bound by its charter, w'hich declares that the Fellows shall have power to expel; and, if prece- dent mean anything, the Fellow accused might expect to have the same opportunity for defence as was allowed to John S. Bartlett, a Fellow, who In 1836, was tried for consulting with an irregular practitioner, by the Councillors first, and afterward in the old hall of the Athenaeum in Pearl Street in this city, by the Society as a whole. In the present instance, the accused is brought before, not the Fellows in the full sense of that term, evident on its face and sub- stantiated by the original interpretation of the Society, but before a very small number of the Fellows, with provisions of law allow- ing even a reduction of this number, appointed contrary to the spirit of the charter, or if not that, contrary to precedent, to en- force a law of questionable authority. Respecting the right of the Society to summon me, and in ac- cordance with my sentiment of honor, I respond to its call; but I protest against the law, and respectfully deny the authority of the so-called Board of Trial. I am accused of " conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honor- able physician and member of this Society," by practising homoeo- pathy. 44 If this mean that I profess to practise on " one theory or dogma only," I ask what is the meaning of the advertisement of my name with those of other members of this Society, in the list furnished by the Treasurer to the publishers of the Boston Directory? Does not the whole of our home world recognize this body as the allo- pathic or old-school society? Doesnot the neighboring list also show my name as belonging to the homoeopathic school ? And how is it that my patrons express to me their satisfaction at my possession, in their opinion, of the knowledge of both classes? I simply deny that I follow homoeopathy or any theory or dogma exclusively. In all candor and ingenuousness, I ask what theory, as an old- school physician, I am to follow? Shall I obey the teaching of my student life, and addict myself to venesection, and leeches, and cupping? Shall I give liberally of cathartics, and spare not coun- ter-irritants? Shall I write prescriptions full-freighted with Hy- drargyri submurias and Antimonium tartarizatum ? Or shall I go back to the period when, according to the best information accessi- ble, the demand for drugs by physicians' prescriptions was many times greater, proportionally, than at present? Or shall I adopt the soda-watef' and expectant treatment ? Or shall 1 yield the field and give the patient up solely to nature, amusing him with ptisans and placebos, and allowing all diseases, whether self- limited or unlimited, to have their own sweet will uninterruptedly ? Will you have me resort to the sthenic or asthenic theory, in the treatment of fever? Shall I confine such patients in warm rooms, with no breath of air and no cold water? Or shall I place them in well ventilated and cool apartments, with plenty of water and all means of antiphlogism freely in use? How shall I know what the- ory is not merely right in your estimation, but likely to commend itself by its results, to my own reason, and give my conscience a chance for peace, should they not be so successful as I might desire? Alas ! The lancet, by some unnaccountable fatality, is pointless, the leech swims almost undisturbed in his native waters, and the cupping-glass, as a sanguinary measure, is either dusty or broken. Calomel has lost prestige. Tartar emetic vexes far less frequently the souls of nauseated mortals. The practice has changed ; the fashion has changed; whiskey is more popular; oleum jecoris aselli cures phthisis, or ought to, while chloral makes all the world rejoice, or gently leads them to profound repose. In 1839 or 1840, I was reproached by my partner in business, Dr. Johnson Gardner, for not bleeding more freely. On my asking if my patients did not recover as well as those more liberally de- pleted, the doctor replied that our mutual friend, Dr. Levi Wheaton, of Providence, then practising medicine at the age of eighty-four, " regretted that he had not bled oftener," and hence he - Dr. G. - would advise me to be warned by the example. Dr. Wheaton was one of the most distinguished physicians ever known to the 45 State of Rhode Island, and having always availed himself of all the light in his possession, justly received the confidence and love of the whole community. Medical theories have ever been as changeful as the kaleidoscope, their various hues and forms depending on the amount of knowl- edge - or, it may be, mental independence - of the physicians, on fashion and a host of other causes. At one time the wound is heavily plastered ; at another, the weapon inflicting the wound, or, if this be inaccessible, its like is besmeared and bandaged ; at another, more simple dressings are the rule, and finally cold water is the cure- all for the unwilling living tenants of the battle-field. A few years ago, the peritoneum was opened only in an operating- room warmed to almost blood heat, and the operation was deemed desperate; now. ovariotomy, still regarded by one with horror, is the chosen field for brilliant triumphs of another. In anaesthesia, one body of surgeons regard chloroform as their main stay and sure reliance, another look upon ether as the agent: neither can allow that its favorite is liable seriously to injure ; neither would yield its point to the other ; and yet, unquestionably, both deserve respect, and are animated by the most fervent desire to do good. Whom of all these shall I follow? Shall I use either agent to blunt the sensation, while borrowing the garter, the broomstick and the washboxyl, I perform the annual bleeding, or draw off the suit- able allowance from the arm of the future mother? Not many years ago I met a man who had lost his arm through the wounding of the artery, in an attempt at venesection. Would amputation be resorted to readily, at this day, in such misfortune ? Has the treatment of compound fracture undergone no change within a century ? What has become of the treatment of small-pox by inoculation? If I amputate, shall I resort to heated pitch, or to ligation of arteries ? Shall the wound be invited and aided to heal, or compelled to suppurate ? What theory, from the times of JEscu- lapius or Hippocrates, shall guide, or rather rule me? While I am awaiting an answer to this question, I reflect on other branches of knowledge, and find that the galley, with its oars and shields, gave way to the frigate with its cannon ; that the cloth- yard shafts of the English archer, by which he was said to carry fourteen Scottish lives under his girdle, were laid up as useless lumber, when the musket, over-matching the coat of mail, made a few men arbiters of the battle ; that steam, at first forcing small craft slowly against the river current, now drives the largest ships, in sunshine and storm, against the hitherto resistless force of and enables a single mind to change the mode of naval warfare, and invalidate the preparations for war, of empires, for centuries. I see the chassepot displace the smooth-bore, the needle-gun defeat cavalry. I see Hoe illuminating the country in an hour, by his press, Morse harnessing the lightning; I see mechanical tri- umphs innumerable; I behold the relaxation of the grasp of tyr- 46 anny upon the bodies of men, and constant and successful effort for freedom of mind and soul, - and I ask, Can it be that in medi- cine there is no improvement? Has medicine no guiding principle? Must it ever be empiricism, a system of experiment, a practice founded on experience alone ? I ask the teacher; Dr. John Ware, Professor of Theory and Practice in Harvard University (my highly esteemed private in- structor). in an opening lecture in the college, advised his class that there lies at the foundation of practical medicine, one word, D-o-u-b-t. Who will deny this? I ask the practitioner ; Dr. Jacob Bigelow, standing at the bed- side of a patient in the Massachusetts General Hospital, with the record in his hand, publicly said to the house physician, " I see that you have written ' better for taking the salts.' How do you know that the patient was better for taking the salts? Write, ' better after taking the salts.'" This utterance is the indorsement of Dr. Ware's lesson. I ask the Massachusetts Medical Society, and receive substan tially (respectfully be it said) the same answer. Under such circumstances, an idea, so peculiar as to arouse curi- osity, yet so preposterous seemingly, as to lead to rejection, is presented only to be repelled. But it comes again, achieving such results as to morit attention, - and substantially says, Try me according to my rules, and accept or reject me, according to the result." I waived prejudice, and, investigating the claim, became satisfied that the homoeopathia is a law of nature,- a conviction strengthened by many years' observation. Of this law, 1 gladly avail myself whenever it is possible for me so to do, employing it almost always, and very rarely resorting to the modes of my earlier practice. But I use, in any case, any means, whether in accordance with or aside from the known scope of this law, with which I think 1 can promote the cure ia/e, cito, et jucunde. Why is homoeopathy an exclusive theory? What is an exclusive theory? If homoeopathy be, as is claimed, a law of nature, is it the only law? Can it by possibility be inconsistent with, or exclu- sive of any other law ? Its inconsistency with theories of any man in no wise invalidates its truth. Its opponents may as well declare the law that turns the needle to the pole,- the law which creates navigation,- an exclusive theory, because it does not include the determination of the latitude and longitude. Or shall we ignore or deny the truth that the square of the hypothenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides, because it does not include all other geometrical truths? For my part, I am satisfied that there are other laws lying very near, but not as yet within our reach; and that any man is not only justifiable, but that he will be discharging an imperative duty, in administering whatever he intelligently and conscientiously believes to promise relief. 47 Now, because after taking pains to investigate, and becoming satisfied of the truth and force of the homoeopathic law, I have made use of it, and still continue to employ it, at my discretion, for the benefit of my fellow-creatures, I am accused of conduct unworthy an honorable physician I On what theory or dogma shall I practise? Will the Massachusetts Medical Society advise ? Have they anything positive and reliable to advance? Which of the various theories of its numerous members shall I adopt? Shall I accept anyone through courtesy, as an act of polite consideration? The ground is insufficient to justify my risking the life of another, were 1 willing to risk somewhat my own. Shall I take another's theory ab auctoritate, and let him do the thinking, while I am per- haps making it the knell of Duncan to some poor soul? Am 1 to refrain from availing myself of my knowledge? Shall my patients be deprived of the possible benefit of any such knowl- edge? Is my action to be limited by the ignorance or prejudice of any individual, or any number of the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society? If it be thus controlled, where is my individual liberty ? Of what avail is the action of the State, in chartering the Society for the purpose of securing the welfare of the public, but now employed to deprive the public of at least a part - and that not an insignificant one - of its protective resources? Shall 1 not rather act as is the privilege, the prerogative, the imperative duty of every Fellow, self-respecting and conscious of his integrity of purpose ; to wit, having given my early life to proper academic preparation, having been rewarded lor my exertions as a student, general and professional, with the usual bachelor's and master's degrees, and the diploma of a doctor of medicine, all from the first university in the country, and then, having practised with diligent s'.udy and care, for more than thirty years, - with what success I leave others to tell,- shall I not assume to be myself, think my own thoughts, exercise my own liberty, and select for my suffering patient, that course which I consider the best for him? The Massachusetts Medical Society said in 1838, that it considered me virum vitoe integerrimum, artisque medendi peritissimum, tt omnibus honoribus et prioilegtis societatis dignissimum"; and now in 1873, because after so many years of study and labor, I prefer homoeopathy, not excluding, nor refusing to admit the force of anything that can be shown to be true, or wise, or efficient to pro- mote the good of the sick, because I admit a truth to an unpreju- diced observer clearly demonstrable, it accuses me of unworthy conduct! If a member of the Society believe and practise upon the expectant theory, is he not liable to a similar charge ? If he select two or more of the numerous theories, is he not eclectic? Can either be a worthy Socius? How far shall this questioning be carried? By whom shall it be instituted ? And who is bound to answer ? 48 Tn 1846, a few members of this Society became possessed of an item of medical knowledge to which they called the attention of their associates, and, for so doing, received the thanks to which they were entitled They followed the dictates of common-sense, and gave currency to ether. Previous to that date, a Fellow of this Society had learned, and since the date, others have become acquainted with valuable knowl- edge to which they have constantly invited the attention of their associates in this Society. But they have reason to complain that, not only have their urgent requests been disregarded, but that they find themselves arraigned as unworthy, at the instance of persons who either have not conducted investigation properly, or who have not been favored with results so satisfactory in number and impor- tance as have been reached by the accused ; a condition of facts susceptible, perhaps, of change by time and a more exact experimen- tation If homoeopathy has not resulted well in their hands, it has in those of others, for Dr. Gregg treated nineteen hundred patients homoeopathically in one year, with only nine* deaths. . And yet, why were the Fellows who consented to employ an agent which was kept secret from the profession by him who first brought it forward as an anaesthetic, honored for their conduct, while those who have presented and urged upon their associates a system of therapeutics of so great value, despite its necessarily imperfect development, - a system which is neither secret nor unworthy their attention,-why are these men thus peculiarly assailed ? If you say that the Society is aiming at the protection of the people from ignorance and knavery, at least take some pains to ascertain whether your Fellows who practise homoeopathy (and this is the only offence) may not have some knowledge not com- mon to all its members, and may not be able to give a satisfactory reason for the faith that is in them, ere you proceed, merely for a difference of opinion on therapeutics, to denounce them, - a fact not especially novel in professional history. Will the Massachusetts Medical Society assume to say to its Fellows, you may think and believe thus, but you shall not think and believe otherwise? There is in the possession of the Massachusetts Medical Society no standard of judgment, within my knowledge. There is no board elected or appointed, as I have ever heard, who are ex officio judges of truth ; who possess the ability to declare, a priori, and, without examination, a new idea or proposition true or false. On the contrary, each Fellow is bound to examine a new claim to truth, every aid possible being rendered by the Society ; and he should have the liberty to form and enjoy his own opinion, and * Erroneously stated at four through misunderstanding a remark of Dr. Gregg himself. 49 demonstrate the propriety, as well as sincerity of his belief, in the midst of the largest charity. In other words, the right of private judgment should be, nay, must be, absolutely beyond question, impugnment, or assault. If it be so, you may have the entire medical mind of the State honestly, laboriously, courageously, and harmoniously devoted to the development of all departments of the profession ; you shall have a Jackson patiently breathing the foul air of the dead-room, while studying pathology, a G-arratt growing pale in his efforts to compel electricity to restore the suffering and prostrate, a Lewis cheerfully leading the future surgeons in the anatomical elements, while you encourage a host to increase the knowledge subservient to human welfare. But if this right of a man's mind to its own exercises and its own conclusions be denied or infringed upon, the members of this Society will either be prevented from investigation, or will enter upon and pursue it with fear and suspicion ; or else they will, with resolute courage, go forward in the work, determined to know at any hazard, and bidding defiance to all that the Society can do. The gentleman acting as prosecutor at the first meeting of the Board of Trial, charitably waived the opportunity of figuratively copying the example of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, treating the accused as she did her disobedient son. We have no thanks to return for a charity extorted only by a public opinion in advance of the times of John Huss and Archbishop Cranmer, and take the liberty to suggest that as King John was compelled by the Barons to refrain from wrong doing, even so may any body of men who trample on the rights of others at the present day, be brought to a position more ignominious still. If the Society shall encourage its members to perfect themselves for their duties by every possible means, it will accomplish the purpose of its existence ; but if, by a narrow policy, it discourage or repress investigation, or denounce and attempt to dishonor its Fellows for honest and inevitable differences of opinion, it will fail of its object, outrage confiding humanity, and be guilty of trea- son to the State ; nay more, it will, by assuming that nothing new of truth can be presented for its consideration, declare itself the sole custodian of all knowledge, and usurp the place of Divine Wisdom itself. I am also accused of "conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of this Society," in " belonging to a society whose purpose is at variance with the principles of, and tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society." This accusation lies against me as a member of the Massachu- setts Homoeopathic Medical Society, If I am asked whether I am a member of that Society, I shall very cheerfully respond in the affirmative. But if I am accused of 50 belonging to a society with a purpose at variance with that of the Massachusetts Medical Society, I must answer in the negative. How are " purpose" and " principles" to be contrasted? What did Massachusetts intend to accomplish, when it char- tered the Massachusetts Medical Society? The preamble of the charter reads thus : - " As health is essentially necessary to the happiness of society, and as its preservation or recovery is closely connected with the knowledge of the animal economy and of the properties and effects of medicines; and as the benefits of medical institutions, founded on liberal principles and encouraged by the patronage of the law, is universally acknowledged, - The Fellows and their successors shall be and continue forever a body politic and corporate, by the name of the Massachusetts Medical So- ciety." The consideration of this preamble and of the charter, leads me to believe that the State intended to create an instrument, that should efficiently aid in the preservation or recovery of the public health, that the industrial and military resources should be kept at their maximum, in this respect, and the greatest comfort of the individual citizen be secured. The Society commencing its existence ninety years ago, has doubtless striven to fulfil this purpose. A few years ago Massachusetts gave a charter to another Soci- ety, made up at the time largely of Fellows of the Massachusetts Medical Society, under the name of the Massachusetts Homoeo- pathic Medical Society. The purpose of the new organization is, like that of the old one, the preservation or recovery of the public health. Each Society is endowed with similar powers, and, as far as I know, similar privileges. At the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Med- ical Society, April 13, 1864, the President, Daniel Holt, M.D., of Lowell, in his address to the Society, said: - " The object of our Society is one of the highest importance. It is not to favor any party interests or exclusive doctrines, which are to be en- grafted upon our profession; but its aim is the promotion of medical sci- ence in its highest degree of perfection. It is our object more especially to apply to the healing art a creed of nature, whereby the relation between the pathological condition and the therapeutic means of cure, are brought into exact relationship; and by this simple and direct means, to effect a cure, in a speedy, mild, and efficient manner." The Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society believes that it has a vital principle as its base. It has good reasons for its faith. It sees triumphs over disease, the most brilliant, achieved con- stantly under the guidance of this principle, and a revolution in the medical history of the country, productive only of good, to which this principle is contributing its full quota. What principle or purpose of the old Society is here interfered with, or in any way 51 thwarted? What are the principles of the Massachusetts Medical Society, distinctive and peculiar? Ethics are about the same among all right-minded men. If there be a difference between these Societies, it must be on intellectual grounds. The difference lies in the department of therapeutics, and involves no necessity of hostility between the parties. The Fellows of the Massachusetts Medical Society are certainly entitled to claim the faith of the public, in the assertion of the Society concerning them,-that they are " artis medendi peritis- simi." By their connection with the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society, they signify to each other and the world their confidence in an additional department of knowledge. They make no war. They simply ask for investigation. They do not seek the destruction of the Massachusetts Medical Society. They had an undisputed, an indisputable right, moral and legal, to associate themselves together for the purpose of the charter, and have a chartered right to invite men of similar views to join their organization. Such a course is in keeping with the policy of the State,-to foster all knowledge likely to be of public value. The Society will, with reason, expect the protection and support of the power that authorized it. Each of these Societies owes it to the State, to promote the en- lightenment and consequent usefulness of its members. Neither can extinguish the other. As to the disorganization of the old society by the new one, I can only say, that I do not remember hearing such a sentiment advanced since the formation of the lat- ter, and I believe that the hearty desire of the Fellows of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is for the removal of the indisposition to examine their position, and the mistaken an- tagonism of their associates in the Massachusetts Medical Society. But, it is practically said, if there be no actually hostile effort, there is such dissimilarity, such incompatibility, as to make a gen- uine peace impossible, and hence it is the duty of the homoeopa- thists to withdraw from the other Society. The Massachusetts Medical Society, in attacking its accused members, is merely repeating the experiment of King Canute in forbidding the advance of the tide. It may succeed in removing their names from the catalogue, but will it have abolished the cause of difference ? What is this cause? A law of nature. We assert that the in- compatibility, if such it may be termed, grows out of the fact that one man sees what another does not. But we deny that there is any consequent necessity for us to resign. What is it to resign? Such heretofore - and until a late period - has been the legislation of the State and of the Massachusetts Medical Society, as to cause any physician residing in the State 52 without a membership in the Society, to be considered an " irreg- ular practitioner " and excluded, by enactments of the Society, from an equality with its members Dupuytren, Lisfranc, Roux, Armstrong, Sir Astley Cooper, - all, had they been here, would, not many years ago, have been considered, so far as a consultation with a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society is concerned, irregular practitioners, and hence not worthy of meeting the Fel- lows of the Society in this important part of our duty. I see that now there is a circuitous route, by which a Fellow can travel half- way or more around this enactment. This position of irregular practitioner - the rightful standing of an ignorant pretender - cannot be considered an agreeable one by any educated physician. However consonant it may be with the view of the Society, it is clearly discordant with the later policy of the State. This degraded position I am invited to assume. Why? Is it because that, in accordance with duty to myself and the public, I investigated homoeopathy? Is it because I gave facts their due weight and consideration, and, by an inexorable logic, was driven to an unavoidable conclusion ? Is it because that, having learned better processes of treatment, I gave my patients the benefit of that knowledge, and thus contributed my mite to the public good ? Or, should I resign because my associates have not, thus far, as a body, arrived at the same conclusions? In the introduction of new ideas in any department of life, do all men at the same instant accept the novelty? How long has it taken Christianity to gain not more than half the world, even nominally? What amount of training, for what length of time, was necessary to teach this people to " undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free " ? And is he who accepts a truth clearly shown to him, to forget that a mass of minds will of neces- sity require time, ere they occupy his position? Opportunities for observation, the overcoming of prejudice and pride of opinion, the reconciliation of old and new views on the one hand - the conflict of interests, and the possible loss or alienation of friends on the other, - these and numberless other influences, are to be taken into account. The man who dares believe when he hears the announce- ment, is of course earlier in the faith than he can be who has not yet heard it; and the pioneer must be content to wait until he shall be joined by converts. . But in matters like medicine, where doubt underlies the entire system, and the truth accepted by him is itself challenged, he need be in no haste to separate from asso- ciates and friends of acknowledged mental and moral excellence. He has no call, as a member of the Massachusetts Medical Soci- ety, to assume the position of " irregular practitioner," neither ought he (after learning his profession twice, as does every allopathic physician who learns homoeopathy) to be required so to do. Such a course is calculated to provoke a warfare, boding no 53 good to the Massachusetts Medical Society, how much injury soever it may momentarily inflict on the assailed. The world is full of the consequences of such lack of wisdom. In conclusion, permit me to say, that this Board of Trial, the possible appellate Councillors' court, the Massachusetts Medical Society itself, is not the authority that will really decide the ques- tions at issue. A higher power will say whether it will approve or condemn progress in medical science, whether it will encourage or repress investigation looking to that end, whether it will uphold freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and what it may deem the proper position of those who fear not what man can do, but fear God alone ; this power is the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; their enlightened and deliberate verdict I can patiently await. 54 DR. THAYER'S-DEFENCE. Dr. Thayer spoke especially in behalf of himself and Dr. Milton Fuller. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Board of Trial:-• In addressing myself to the defence which I find myself here to make, against certain charges brought by a Committee of the Mas- sachusetts Medical Society, it seems proper that I should first re- hearse those charges in your hearing. They are as follows, viz :- Northampton, Mass., Nov. 4, 1871. To David Thayer, M. D.: Sir - Charges having been preferred against you by a committee of the Massachusetts Medical Society of "Conduct unbecoming and unworthy an honorable physician and member of this Society," to wit: "by practis- ing or professing to practise according to an exclusive theory or dogma, and by belonging to a Society whose purpose is at variance with the prin- ciples of, and tends to disorganize, the Massachusetts Medical Society,"- You are hereby directed to appear before a Board of Trial at the Soci- ety's Rooms, No. 36 Temple place, Perkins Building, on Tuesday, Novem- ber 21, 1871, at 11 o'clock, a. m., to answer to the same, in accordance with by-laws and instructions of the Society. SAMUEL A. FISK, President of the Massachusetts Medical Society. I pass by the insult implied in the phrase "professing to practise." It is of a piece with many other things in this trial. It requires no notice, and is wholly unworthy of gentlemen representing our venerable Society and members of an honorable profession. The substance of the charge is that in practising on the homoeopathic system and in joining the Homoeopathic Society I have been guilty of conduct inconsistent with my duty as a member of the Massa- chusetts Medical Society. What is the nature and object of that Society? Its charter pro- vides in its preamble that those physicians who are educated and qualified to practise physic may be distinguished from those who ignorantly and wickedly administer medicines. The object of the Society is apparent from this preamble. That object is to bring educated physicians together for mutual support, consultation, and recognition. The Society proposes to marshal in its ranks all those physicians who have submitted to a thorough and sufficient educa- tion and preparation before assuming the responsibilities of the profession. The object of the Society is to distinguish such men from the presumptuous and ignorant quack who, without training or study, administers drugs of which he knows nothing, and the use of which in disease is fraught with danger to health and life. The Society prescribes no method or system of medicine, no rule of practice ; neither does it forbid any. It indorses neither allo- pathy nor homoeopathy nor antipathy nor hydropathy. It neither denies nor affirms Cullen's theory of fever, nor Todd's. It does not make belief in Bigelow's notion of self-limited diseases a condi- 55 tion of membership; neither would it expel old Dr. Shattuck or Strong, or any of our old heroic practitioners, were they alive, be- cause they did not accept Holmes' idea of a good physician ; viz., to watch your patient carefully, but trouble and endanger him with as little medicine as possible. On all such points it is silent. It only demands that its members shall be men who have faithfully weighed and examined all systems ; men of trained minds, compe- tent to form a judgment on such questions, men of such education, skill, and experience as justify them in assuming the care of the sick. It runs no line between this system or that. The line that it intends to draw is one that shall separate education from igno- rance, the man of careful and honest training from the charlatan and the quack. Inside of this line it leaves every one of its mem- bers entirely free to exercise the healing art according to his own best judgment. All systems and theories are free to all. They may and do practise, some on one principle and some on another, while many follow no principle or theory, but are guided entirely by experience, - and no one objects or has any right to object. All may give large doses of medicine or small ones, or none at all. Many use all the means known to the art of healing - ponderable bodies and imponderable agencies, all the various uses of water- hot and cold, - electricity and galvanism, Perkinsism and animal magnetism, and whatever else that is known or to be known. All that our Society undertakes to secure is that its members shall be men sufficiently educated to be competent to decide between rival theories, and of such good judgment that their course shall honor the profession, and serve the public health. If I am not correct in this statement of the purposes of this Society, please, gentlemen, open its records and show me where it states what par- ticular system it does sanction. Please to show us in the by-laws or charter of the Society any indorsement of any system of prac- tice. You cannot do it, for it is not there. As Dr. Luther Parks, the Chairman of the Prosecuting Committee, said in the beginning of these trials, "We have no system; every one is entirely free to do as he pleases." " In this room," said he, " the doctors used to contend with old Dr. Strong against his enormous doses; but no one could deny his right to do just as he pleased, and every one had the same right." Various and numerous have been the theories believed in, practised on and promulgated in this Society. Even Perkinsism was allowed and practised in this Society, within the last century. It went out of use, not by summoning its votaries before this tribunal: that might have prolonged its use. Perkinsism and Astrology might be used in the Massachusetts Medical Society to-day, and undisturbed, so long as it was unsuccessful, and the large fees did not find their way into the pockets of the astrologers and tractorators. The learned and witty Dr. O. W. Holmes ridicules the efficacy of nine tenths of all the drugs which the founders of this Society used, and, excepting one or two, he considers all drugs 56 injurious, - is sure mankind would be healthier if drugs had never been discovered, and is not quite sure the same would not have been the case had physicians never appeared. You remember his saying : " If all the medicines were thrown into the sea it would be all the better for mankind, but all the worse for the fishes." Is this treason to the Massachusetts Medical Society? If we are justly accused, what of Dr. Holmes? Does any one propose to arraign him as undermining the very foundations of this Society? Why not, if the theory on which we are accused be correct ? Now, gentlemen, if my representation of the Society be correct, why are we arraigned ? Educated we certainly are to the Society's content; otherwise we should never have been admitted. Besides, we can point to as many years of faithful study and practice as you can. How. then, have we violated our duties since? Have we ludicrously failed in grappling with disease ? Have we sported with the lives of our patients? Have we deluded the ignorant classes to their hurt, extoiting fees and rendering nothing in return? Have we disgraced the Society by parading a notion of medicine that no sane man would countenance, which trifles with human life and brings contempt on the profession? Gentlemen, on all these points we are willing to measure ourselves with you. Your system has had possession of the Commonwealth for two centuries. Ours has been known here not quite forty years. Making fair allowance for time, we have as many families trusted to our care as you have. And our patients are not the careless, the ignorant, the needy, who must take what they can get, or the reckless, carried away by every new whim. No ; we count among our patients the rich, who have tried every clime for health, every city for medical skill, every the- ory for efficient help ; we have the foremost men at the bar, in the pulpit, on the exchange. In intelligence, social position, and world- wide culture, the men and women who trust their lives to us may be fairly measured with any who consult you. On this point we have done the Society no dishonor. But, second, have we failed to help these friends? Have we been found wanting in severe disease? Forty years is sufficient time for trial. The evidence that they find us efficient helpers is that they continue to trust us. Third: But is our method empiricism and quackery? Who is authorized to say that of a system which two generations of the best educated men in this country and in Europe continue to trust; which the foremost governments of Europe recognize; which has its hospitals, both city and national, all over the world ; which dares to compare its success in curing disease with the best of you? If woi Id-wide recognition, unequalled success in curing disease, and the confidence of the most enlightened classes here and in Europe do not lift a system into sufficient character to pre- vent its use disgracing this Society, please describe to us, gentle- men, what evidence of usefulness you do demand ? 57 Again, gentlemen, other members of the Massachusetts Medical Society have organized themselves into other societies for the cul- tivation of medicine and for special purposes, just as the homoeo- pathists ha\e done. The Gynaecological Society, whose blatan and noisy members have done so much to disturb the harmony o this Society, has for its object the study of the diseases of women. Yet no one of them has been arraigned here. Why not? Is it be- cause they have no principle or system? But we who have a system, and practise in accordance with it, are called to answer for it. The object of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is the culture of medicine according to a law of nature, which law is recog- nized (ignorantly perhaps) even in the Massachusetts Medical Society. This law is expressed by the formula of Hahnemann - " Similia similibus curantur." Hippocrates acknowledged the truth of this law, and Hufeland sent some patients, whom he could not cure, to consult Dr. Hahnemann. Why do you apply snow to a frozen part, and distant heat to a burn ? These practices are traditional, and are used empirically by the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, never thinking that this is homoeopathy of the rankest kind. There are many other instances in which you cure diseases homoeopathically without once dreaming that you are guilty' of trenching on the domain of homoeopathy. One of these is the use of purgatives in affections of the bowels, and thus hun- dreds are killed every year in this city by your heroic and danger- ous doses. If the allopaths would follow out and profit by the experience of the homoeopaths, and give their minute doses, the results would show them the superiority of the latter over the former. They have lately learned that minute doses of ipecacu- anha will cure nausea and vomiting, while they have given the large doses of that diug for a century-first increasing vomiting and thereby curing it - on the homoeopathic principle, to be sure ; but so " ignorantly and wickedly " applied, that great mischief is often done thereby. But some wise observer among them has dis- covered that very minute doses of ipecacuanha will cure nausea and vomiting in a more prompt and satisfactory manner. This astonishing discovery is explained, they think, by the bold state- ment that ipecacuanha is a tonic ! How cunningly they avoid the homoeopathic law - "Similia similibus curantur! " There are many other instances of the same nature which might be stated, showing that the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society for years have blundered along the road towards homoeo- pathy ; but if told of it, the learned reply is, " Homoeopathy is a humbug," and that is the end of it. The motto on the seal of the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society is " Certiorem me- dendi usum maluit." This motto expresses the meaning and the aspirations of thousands of earnest homoeopathists in this country - "to make the art of healing more certain." 58 If it be proved that the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society has done something to benefit science and to aid in the cure of disease and to make medicine a more certain science, then I boldly assert that, instead of tending to disorganize the Massa- chusetts Medical Society, the tendency is rather to benefit and to aid that ancient corporation, and to put it on a higher plane of ob- servation. Any member of the Massachusetts Medical Society, should he Jeecome so far enlightened as to perceive that there is truth in the direction of homoeopathy, could join the Massachusetts Homoeopathic Medical Society by avowing a desire to learn ho- moeopathy. But leaving general statements, I propose to show you in detail that homoeopathy is not what Dr. Luther Parks declared it to be, - a fraud, an imposition, " like the little joker, sometimes here and sometimes there," but that it is a useful and beneficent system of medicine, as true as any law known to physics. In order to make this clear I must state to you something which homoeopathy has done. In the report made to the Massachusetts Medical Society, twenty-three years ago, Dr. Geo. Hayward, Dr. Oliver W. Holmes, and Dr. J. B. S. Jackson said that homoeopathy had done much good by teaching us that a great deal less medicine will do just as well,- (I quote from memory). Has any other special theory of medicine in your books or system of practice lived so long as hom- oeopathy has - more than three-quarters of a century? and is it not still fast gaining in favor with the best and most intelligent of the people ? Homoeopathy has done some good. There are cures made every day by homoeopathy which would astonish the whole medical world if they were known and under- stood. In the cure of diarrhoea of adults in New England nothing can surpass the efficacy of this little white powder. It is sweet to the taste, inodorous, and I doubt if your chemistry can detect even a trace of medicine in it. It contains only one-millionth part of a grain of the drug in each grain, yet it cures with astonishing quick- ness- tute, cito, etjucunde. But even this medicine is too strong for the enteritis of infants, and if given will endanger life. Dr. Jacob Bigelow says that syphilis is not a self-limited dis- ease ; by which he means to say that the patient will never sponta- neously recover. If that is true, then I am able to demonstrate the efficacy of homoeopathic medicine in that terrible disease. This little vial contains also a white, sweet, and inodorous powder - just one ten-thousandth part of it is medicine, the rest is sugar of milk. For the primary chancre I always give a small dose of this powder two or three times a day for one week. The sore will always look worse at the end of that time. I then give it only once or twice a day. When improvement is visible I give the medicine less frequently, and the patient is cured. Sometimes the young homoeopathist will be impatient as the chancre looks worse, and will be tempted to make some local application, especially if he has 59 been graduated at an allopathic college. But let him wait, and his faith and works will be rewarded. No application to the chancre itself should be made, further than to keep it clean; and this little white and harmless powder will effect a cure without secondary symptoms. I am able to assure you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Board of Trial, that it is a very rare circumstance that one of my cases has ever developed secondary symptoms. This powder contains only one ten-thousandth part of the drug, while the other 9.999 parts are nothing but sugar of milk. This medicine has been ground four hours in a mortar. Dr. Jacob Bigelow says this disease is not self-curable. Then I ask you what cures these cases? If this homoeopathic drug does not do it, please tell us what does? Or is Dr. Bigelow mistaken? Or am I mistaken? Very strange I should not know the disease after the study and practice of medicine more than a third of a century, and living in a city where it is very common. One or two more illustrations and I will not tire you with a fourth. The disease known as gall-stone, you, Mr. Chairman, none of you, gentlemen, members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, can cure. Not one of you ever pretended to have attained to that knowl- edge ; yet nothing is easier. The gallstone colic is easily recog- nized. Your only remedy is opiates, hypodermic injections, the inhalation of ether, or some other narcotic to allay the sufferings of the patient, and perhaps an aperient to hasten the discharge of the gall-stone. This is the best you know-the best you can do. In the winter of 1854-55 the discovery was made that gall-stone colic can be cured, radically cured. By the radical cure of gall-stone colic is meant that change in the system which prevents the recurrence of the malady. The remedy I hold in my hand. It is in these small, round pellets of sugar. They have been slightly moistened by a solution containing only one-millionth part of the drug and 999.999 parts of alcohol and water. This bilious colic is caused by the lodgment of a calculus in the duct of the gall-bladder too small for its easy passage, or by other biliary obstructions. It is apt to recur every two or three weeks, once a month, and sometimes after longer intervals. One of its strong characteristics is periodicity. The remedy which I have exhibited has periodicity for one of its characteristics as well as a special affinity for the gall-bladder. It is now more than nineteen years since the value of this remedy came to my knowledge, and from that time to this it has not in a single instance failed to prevent the recurrence of the disease. I usually give six of these little pillets twice a day till ten doses are taken, then once a day till ten doses are taken, then every other day till ten doses are taken, etc., etc., etc., till at length they are taken only once a month. In the last nineteen years I have treated hundreds of cases, from all parts of the continent, and without a single fail ure. 60 There fire many other diseases, the remedies for which are equally reliable and well known to the accused. Can any of you gentlemen cure organic disease of the heart? Every member of our Society can. Are any of you able to tell us the remedy for rachitis in- fantum? We can tell you, for we have not failed once in more than twelve years. And we don't use any iron-braces, nor any me- chanical appliances whatever, only some of those little sugar pills, moistened with a solution of a drug, only one-millionth part of which is medicine, and 999.999 parts of which are alcohol and water - nothing else. We are indicted for belonging to a Society which teaches these things, and for practising homoeopathy, by means of which cures are made of diseases which those unacquainted with homoeopathy would pronounce incurable. Is this " conduct unworthy and unbe- coming an honorable physician" t And does it "tend to disorgan- ize the Massachusetts Medical Society"? If you don't believe these statements, we will obtain permission to refer you to the persons who have been cured of these (incurable ?) diseases, who are only too grateful to homoeopathy not to be willing to tell you the truth? We may perhaps be permitted to refer you to the members of the Massachusetts Medical Society, who pronounced those cases incurable. You charge us, gentlemen, with attempting to disorganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. Your only evidence is, that we have joined another society and practise homoeopathy. I invite you, gentlemen, to show us how either of these acts tends to disor- ganize the Massachusetts Medical Society. You have not offered one tittle of evidence. On the contrary, I offer you the evidence of any and all of the accused, or any other members of our Homoeo- pathic Society. They have told you that they never heard a word uttered, or knew of a plan laid to weaken your Society. But, on the contrary, that we have always cherished its welfare and sought its usefulness, and we have annually paid our dues. Now, gentlemen, let me ask you: Is there any by-law or rule in your Society which forbids its members from investigating homoeo- pathy? If not, suppose you take the lead and examine it. I have no doubt, if you will do so, you will all become homoeopathists. For I can say, as has been often said, I never knew a scientific man to fairly examine it who did not believe in it. Now, gentlemen, I make you this proposition, that at the next annual meeting of the Massachusetts Medical Society, in June next, you ask that a com- mittee be appointed - one from each County in the State - or, if you prefer, one from each town and ward of the cities, to investi- gate the claims and pretensions of homoeopathy, with instructions to report at the next annual meeting. I pledge you, gentlemen, that we will aid you all in our power. Every facility shall be given you that can aid you inquiries. DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TRIAL. The undersigned, having been appointed a Board of Trial for the purpose of trying William Bushnell, Milton Fuller, II. L. II. Hoffendahl, George Russell, I. T. Talbot, David Thayer, Benjamin H. West, upon the foregoing charges and specifications, met the several parties charged on the 29th day of April, a. d. 1873, and by adjournment on other days between the said 29th April and the date hereof, and heard the evidence adduced in support of said charges, and heard the said several defendants, all of whom were personally present, and their evidence, averments and arguments in answer to said charges and specifications, and the parties having been fully heard, and the evidence and arguments on each side fully considered, we do find and determine that the said charges and specifications are all fully proved against each of said accused per- sons, and they are severally guilty of the charges aforesaid, and we therefore adjudge and determine that the said William Bushnell, Milton Fuller, H. L. H. Hoffendahl, George Russell, I. T. Talbot, David Thayer, Benjamin II. West, be therefore expelled from their membership of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and report this our determination to the Massachusetts Medical Society at its annual meeting, for such action thereupon as to the Society may seem fit. (Signed) JEREMIAH SPOFFORD, AUGUSTUS TORREY, GEORGE HAYWARD, FREDERICK WINSOR, Being a majority of the Board of Trial. Dated May 19, 1873. A true copy. Chas. W. Swan, Secretary Board of Trial. MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY: - THE RESPONSIBILITY, IN THIS MATTER, NOW RESTS ON YOU.