Medical history of Michigan: Volume II: a machine-readable transcription.

Chapter I Controversies 010

“Agree with thine adversary quickly.” Matthew V:25.

“The great evil of medical societies as they are found generally over the United States is that there is not quarreling enough. They are too peaceful.”

A leader in the Michigan Medical News (Volume V, Page 339) contains the above outgiving. It is unsigned, but J. J. Mulheron and William Brodie were both members of its editorial staff, and, as a child once remarked concerning a personal matter, you may “choose your choice.”

“I don't care a —— whether I fight with the majority or the minority so long as I fight.” —The “late” but never lacking William Brodie.

0113

CHAPTER I Controversies By C. B. BURR, M.D., Flint, Michigan

“The Histories, I borrow, I refer to the consciences of those I take them from.” — Montaigne.

“DR. HENRY F. LYSTER, of this city, gave a reception on the evening of the 13th inst. in honor of Dr. William Brodie, the president-elect of the American Medical Association. The event was a marked success in every particular, and Dr. Brodie was deeply impressed with the cordiality of the congratulations of his local brethren. The fact that his election to the highest office in the grift of the profession meets the hearty approval of those who know him best, makes the honor doubly great. May he long be spared to go in and out among us.” 7

Sympathetically, Dr. Mulheron writes in 1885, “While very sorry for those of our Republican brethren who find their tenure of fat positions growing uncertain, we rejoice with appropriate joy in the brightening prospects of our Democratic brethren. The redistribution of the pap has commenced in this state and our friends Brodie, Eugene Smith, and Kaiser have secured the appointments of U. S. Examining Surgeons for pensions. Nobody has any doubt as to their ability to hold down their new positions, and to regularly draw their fees. Fortune has been bestowing her very broadest smiles on Dr. Brodie lately—President of the American Medical Association, Trustee and Emeritus Professor in the Detroit College of Medicine, U. S. Examining Surgeon, Vice President of the International Medical Congress, etc., and all within two short months! Here are honor and emoluments enough to make a man's head swim.” 7

Homeopathic physician were numerous in Grand Rapids in 1891. 4 Biographic notices are given or mention made of twenty-four, of whom four were women. Of the “early pioneers” in this system of practice it is written that they “aside from their professional theories and practice, were withal in character and reputation so well fitted to disarm prejudice and attract popular favor that, as far as we can learn now, they met with little of the bitter opposition usually exhibited in other places from the so-called regular school of physicians. Occasionally, of course, professional courtesies were denied, but the instances were rare. Dr. Hempel particularly was on such friendly terms with some of the old school physicians that the latter incurred the displeasure of their colleagues and were charged with heresy.”

0124

In the group mentioned by Dr. Samuel G. Milner 4 were Dr. John Ellis, 1843 to 1845 ( See “Pioneer Physicians”); A. H. Botsford, 1851; E. R. Ellis, 1858; and Charles J. Hempel, 1861.

Professional access to either of the hospital under “an exclusive staff of allopathic physicians” was found exceedingly difficult. “Many of the oldest and best friends of both institutions, as well as the daily press of the city, expressed freely their dissatisfaction at the action of the Boards of Trustees, but future history must relate the outcome of the controversy.”

It has.

The meeting of the State Medical Society in 1886 was held under the presidency of Dr. E. P. Christian of Wyandotte.

On motion of Dr. William Brodie the report on re-organization was taken from the table. He moved its adoption, making the State Society a delegate body in conformity with leading societies of the United States and the American Medical Association.

Dr. Maclean moved that the proposition to make the society a delegate body be indefinitely postponed. He thought “we would better go slow.”

Dr. Frothingham seconded the motion and thought the society was “getting along well enough.”

Dr. Stoddard favored the plan of re-organization.

A member moved the previous question, whereupon Dr. Kimball thought the debate ought not to be cut off, and that “we might as well fight it out.”

Three sections of the new constitution were then adopted, and Dr. Brodie moved the adoption of section four. He said, “I hurl the charge back that through a delegated membership rings are to be formed to run this society.”

Dr. Maclean: “You made that charge last year yourself.”

Dr. Brodie: “I never——”

Dr. Kimball: “You said a certain part could run the whole society.”

Dr. Brodie: “I had no part in drawing up this constitution. I did not nominate the committee that made this constitution. Dr. Whelan nominated the committee, and I have had no part or lot in it. I take this matter as it is here today no matter what I said. A man is often converted from what he says. Dr. Frothingham left this society and he has come back again so you see he is converted.”

Dr. Frothingham denied that he made a specious argument. “When I said I knew no better way to lay the foundation for rings I did not know that I was throwing a firebrand.”

Dr. Brodie declared this not pertinent to the subject. Dr. Frothingham thought it was, and Dr. Brodie rose to a point of order.

Dr. Frothingham: “And the American medical profession today stand before us with a stigma——”

President: “I think you are out of order.”

Dr. Frothingham: “Very well, if we're to be choked off I will sit down.”

0135

The discussion was continued at length, Drs. Hemenway, Lundy, Elmer, Parmenter, Carstens, Connor, Noyes, Alvord, Webber, two anonymous members and Dr. Vaughan participating.

Dr. Brodie called Dr. Lundy to order. Dr. Maclean moved the previous question.

A member rose to a question of privilege, as did also Dr. Vaughan.

There was rising to points of order on the part of Dr. Alvord and Dr. Webber.

“Talk about this becoming a delegated body,” said Dr. Lundy. “Look at New York State! The profession has been split up in that state by this very means.”

Eventually the question was voted upon and consideration of it indefinitely postponed—this by a vote of 60 to 39. 13

The foregoing was not the only matter during this session of the society upon which there were grave differences of opinion. Something “happened to this society” yesterday which the judgement of Dr. Yemans did not approve. There seems to have been a paper by Dr. Wight “the scope of which is to appoint a committee to carry an act through the legislature which has no hope of success.” Dr. Yemans thought that the action contemplated in the paper which had been published in that morning's Free Press would cause the society to appear in a “humiliating condition before the legislature of the state.” Dr. Yemans wanted the action reconsidered.

Dr. Brodie thought the motion to reconsider was not in order, and Dr. Yemans retorted, “Do we wish to go before the legislature with the statement that the representatives at Lansing are mostly boobies who do not know the difference between Providence and a nuisance?”

Dr. McGraw said he did not understand just what the rule was concerning the publication of papers, but he assured the society that “there has been no catch of the society on the part of Dr. Wight in publishing this paper. I know Dr. Wight too well.” He didn't wish an insinuation to go out against him in his absence.

Eventually on motion of Dr. Maclean, Dr. Wight's paper was accepted and referred to the Committee on Publication.

“Real progress, all will agree, is being made, despite much pseudo-progress that is illusory. And even error, as medical history has manifoldly proved, may be useful in that it often stimulates controversy that leads to new inquiries from which new truths emerge.”

The above, written by Dr. Lewellys F. Barker of Baltimore in an article on “Endocrine Glands in Relation to Infancy and Childhood,” † is of equal applicability in other fields of medical endeavor.

† Presented before the New York Academy of Medicine, Section on Pediatrics.

Dr. F. C. Warnshuis, secretary of the State Medical Society, said in June, 1928. 6

0146

“The problem of the hospital practice of medicine is becoming extremely acute, especially so within the last year or two, and especially so since the movement that was instituted by the American College of Surgeons. The American College of Surgeons started what I believe was a most pernicious move, in writing and communicating with the hospitals of our country, asking them to set aside a department in the hospital to which the public may come and receive a periodic physical examination at flat fee, conducted by the staff, who are to be remunerated by the hour. If you read the Journal [of the Michigan State Medical Society], you have probably seen that we opposed that. We registered a protest against promulgating such a move, causing or inspiring hospitals to practice medicine.”

And Dr. A. M. Hume of Owosso added:

“I have discovered that a new light has come to the secretary of our State Society that came to me quite a long time ago, and that is that our own organizations (I am not speaking now of the Michigan State Medical Society, but of our own organizations) have done much to throw the monkey-wrench into the gears. The thing he speaks of with reference to the American College of Surgeons is one of the most vicious things that has been done. It is not the only thing that has been done, but they have grown big and reckless and have shown their hand.”

“Resignations of appointments of the committee on the International Medical Congress have commenced to come in from Michigan,” the Medical Age announces in 1885, 7 and adds, “Drs. E. S. Dunster and Henry Sewall, of the University of Michigan have declined to serve. Had anything been lacking to convince the profession of the injustice perpetrated by the American Medical Association toward the original committee, the hiatus no longer exists. When a Michigan man resigns an office, there must be something radically rotten somewhere in Denmark. It has been the peculiar boast of Wolverine office-holders that few die and none resign, and it has always required pretty vigorous effort to kick them out.”

It was as usual the tempestuous teapot. Professor Hanson-Grut of Copenhagen wrote, “I am sorry you have so much bother about the Congress. The spirit that is at the bottom of the dispute is to me a proof of such exclusiveness as I should not have expected to find in your country. I will answer to your question:

“1. That the controversy about codes was never though of, as we have nothing resembling your code of ethics.

“2. The invitation was given decidedly for the whole of the medical profession; none of us thought of, or even mentioned, the American Medical Association.

“4. The only qualification required was, that the member be a legally acknowledged medical practitioner in his country. Our homeopathists who were legally acknowledged practitioners (Dr. Siemsen-Ferish and others) were actually members, and undisputed members, of our Congress.

0157

“I have sent your letter to Professor Lange, who will, no doubt, corroborate my statements. To my knowledge, he has already had similar questions addressed to him from America, and answered them in the same way as I have done.

“The way across is long, the fear of the sea is strong. I do, therefore, believe that it is injurious to the interests of the Congress to have too many restrictions put for admittance.” 7

Dr. Mulheron grabs a cleaver and goes after those who would disparage the New York tolerance of homeopathic perfidy:

“Dr. King of Missouri is none of your milk-and-water, half-hearted reformers. Convince him that a thing is wrong, and he will go right to the root of it with his remedy. He is a codist of the codist, and admits no gradations of turpitude in those who tamper with the bulwark of professional rectitude. To him the culprit who offends in one iota is equally guilty with him who has thrown off all allegiance to the ancient and honorable instrument, and both alike should be exterminated, root ad branch. ‘The specialists of the New Code,’ he declares, ‘should be taken by the top of the head and their throats cut at once.’ Now, if he would only reason justice with a little mercy, and not insist on the execution taking place at once, some of the sinners might be made to suffer. His Draconian penalty is too immediate and too sweeping in its application to meet the approval of the contemporary age, the sentiment of which would let ten flagrant offenders go free, rather than cut the throat of one poor specialist without giving him a chance to repent.” 7

In discussion of the proposed amendment to the Code of Ethics, Article 1 of the American Medical Association, that “it is considered derogatory to the interests of the public and honor of the profession, for any physician or teacher to aid in any way the medical teaching or graduation of persons knowing them to be supporters and intended practitioners of some irregular and exclusive system of medicine,” Dr. Dunster said, “The first objection is that the amendment is contradictory to the code as it now stands. We should do all in our power to extend the bounds of the usefulness of the profession. This amendment prescribes its limits. We are told that medicine is a liberal profession; this amendment absolutely denies the right of a medical education to a certain class in our midst, and makes the profession a most illiberal and proscriptive one. Being contrary to the code in these instances, it is contradictory to the spirit of the code. Another technical objection is that the amendment is illogical, as a child can see that there is no connection with the paragraph to be amended and the amendment as offered. The honor of a teacher does not depend upon those whom he teaches, but upon himself. Another objection is that the amendment must always be inoperative even if adopted. There is no power to enforce this amendment, either by legal, moral or social measures. The enforcement of this statute would close every public clinic in America, because we are forbid to aid in any manner certain classes. There is also an objection because it is based upon the most fallacious 0168assumptions. Now, if we teach the truth and the sciences as we believe, we know that no harm can result; if we adopt the amendment we concede that the dissemination of science leads to error. Are you ready to say that no man shall teach the truth to all classes? Truth is the antidote of error, and sooner or later must conquer it. So far from denying truth to the unbeliever, we should do all in our power to extend its dominion.”

Dr. Dunster next proceeded to fortify his position by many illustrations and examples. “By all the consideration I have mentioned, I appeal to you to reach your conclusion with great deliberation, make your decision solely with the view of upholding the lasting honor of our noble profession and take no step that can be construed by the world at large as a confession of want of faith in the perpetuity of rational medicine. Do this, and we shall have no occasion to regret the work of today, for it will remove in a large degree, the reproaches so often heaped upon us for our intolerance and bigotry, and it will open up a new era of generosity and toleration. Do the opposite and adopt this amendment, and it si a stride backward in the historic march of medicine. Finally, in all your discussion and in your decision, forger me and the great university I have the honor to represent, for it you stand the disaster and the discredit that must come with the adoption of this amendment, we can certainly stand your censure.” 2

A most able reply to this “was made by Dr. N. S. Davis, in which it was made clear that too much sophistry had been cast upon the whole matter, and that the imparting of useful knowledge should be done for a useful purpose in order to accomplish good. After much discussion, the following substitute was adopted: ‘It is not in accord with the interest of the public or the honor of the profession that any physician or medical teacher should examine diplomas or sign diplomas or certificates of proficiency for, or otherwise be specially concerned with the graduation of persons whom they have good reason to believe intend to support and practice any exclusive and irregular system of medicine.’ As an expression of professional opinion, this is sufficiently explicit. It probably does not satisfy either party in the controversy, like most compromises.” 5

Homeopathy in the University

“At a meeting of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, held in this city [Detroit] Jan'y 22d, 1855, present a full bench:

“A motion was made by C. I Walker for the issuing of an alternative mandamus compelling the Board of Regents of the University to appoint a professor of homeopathy according to the act of the legislature, creating the chair, or to show cause why the same is not done.

“The case is held under advisement, and also for further authorities in the case.” 12

The argument of J. V. Campbell thereupon is an interesting and learned document, too lengthy for publication herein. “The writ,” he says, “being in the sound discretion of the Court and not a writ of right, will never be 0179issued in a case where the public good does not require it. And there are several good reasons why the Court should not interfere, even if it has the power.

“1. Because there is no pressing necessity apparent.

“2. Because the delay is not unreasonable.

“3. Because the interference would be disastrous.” 12

In a lengthy review of his annual report, high appreciation is given to President Haven for his comments upon teaching homeopathy in the University of Michigan. “We do not think,” writes the editor of the Detroit Review of Medicine and Pharmacy in 1867, “that it would be possible to express the true relations of the University in this question more felicitously than it has been done by Dr. Haven in this report.”

The report contained the following: “With regard to this specific condition, I could not investigate its merits without seeming, at least, to espouse the cause of a particular party. I must observe, however, that on prudential reasons alone it would be clearly impracticable to teach homeopathy in a manner satisfactory to its friends in such a school as ours which espouses and teaches no exclusive theory—this school teaches neither a conglomeration of conflicting theories, nor any one in particular, but aims, in accordance with the time-honored customs of the oldest medical schools, to teach the science or science underlying or embraced in medicine and surgery.”

Quoting Dr. Angell in his report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1876, in which he “congratulates the people of Michigan that the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery have remained true to the University in opposition to the wishes of a considerable number of the medical profession,” the Detroit Lancet in evident depression alleges, “In short, the critics in the medical profession have failed to accomplish anything by their labor of love in seeking to keep the medical profession pure at one of its fountains.”

Pathos permeates this and leads one to doubt the efficacy of any activity motivated by this worthy and allegedly potential emotion.

From the foregoing, it is evident that introduction of homeopathy into the University Medical School has been, for long before footing therein was secured, the aim of its proponents. Indeed, controversy and contention related thereto date back many years before the mandamus proceedings. ( See reference to correspondence of Dr. Sawyer later on, and article in Chapter IX.)

It was a vexing and harassing question, and in the last quarter of the belligerent nineteenth century which might be called Victorian in the sense that victories were commonplaces—frequent and for the moment satisfactory, but of course never conclusive or enduring—the profession of Michigan was torn nearly to tatters by the established instruction in common, in the University, of regular and homeopathic students in all branches save theory and practice and materia medica.

On the one side conspicuously assertive were the doughty warriors, Donald Maclean and George E. Frothingham, two souls in this matter “with but 01810a single thought.” Arrayed with them, though in the main less vocal, were the remaining professors in the department of scientific medicine; also Dr. Brodie of Detroit and others. Heartily opposed to them was a large contingent of professors in the Detroit College of Medicine and Drs. Topping of Dewitt, Foster Pratt of Kalamazoo, Jerome of Saginaw, and Bartholomew and Ranney of Lansing, the latter secretary of the State Medical Society. On the side lines were those not gifted with the power of oratory but adroit politicians, like James A. Brown of Detroit who might with unerring certainty be numbered among the ultra-conservatives.

The war was fast and furious and threatened the fragmentation of the State Medical Society. Dr. Ranney was a subtle force, Dr. Jerome, a clever generalissimo, Dr. Pratt, a powerful debater. Dr. Brodie was stinging and cynical and in this controversy apparently threw in his fortune with “the under dog.” This was characteristic—he once said to the writer, “I don't care a damn whether I fight with the majority or the minority so long as I fight.” His attitude in the squabble is the more surprising considering a previous position taken concerning an address of Dr. Palmer (q.v.), but there is no accounting for Dr. Brodie.

The question at issue was whether teachers who, in the opinion of the conservatives, depreciated themselves and prostituted their profession, by contributing to the enlightenment of “irregulars,” should be permitted to retain membership in the State Medical Society, and whether students in the department of scientific medicine who had received instruction from these proscribed individuals should be regarded eligible to a seat among the elect therein. It may well be believed that the writer of this, who joined the State Medical Society in the year 1878 when the controversy reached its climax, felt a degree of security from having graduated in the East, not unmixed with trepidation lest his record of one term attendance at the University medical school might be invoked to prevent favorable consideration of his application for membership. It was a fight to the finish, and there was engendered a degree of bitterness so great that in Dr. Maclean's candidacy, seventeen years later, for the presidency of the American Medical Association, there were opposing factions from Michigan represented at the San Francisco meeting. The Maclean supporters enjoyed the hospitality of the railroads on the trip to “the Coast” and won out in the election. Dr. Maclean was at that time living in Detroit and was Surgeon-in-Chief of the Michigan Central.

In announcing the meeting of 1878, the astute and caustic Mulheron, scenting conflict from afar, expressed the belief 8 “that the large majority of the members will be disappointed and disgusted should any attempt be made to open up old sores,” but inasmuch as “there is no law against a man's making himself ridiculous and contemptible,” it is “possible that some imperfectly balanced individual, itching after a little notoriety, will endeavor to revive the University homeopathic squabble. We are indeed advised that such 01911an attempt is contemplated.” They—the forthright and upstanding members be it understood—“have now reached the limit of forbearance,” etc., etc.

How little is realized the elasticity of “forbearance.” Mulheron foresaw that the Hawxhurst-Ranney matter was rich in possibilities of discord, deplored the nullification tactics of the secretary, and appealed to the Society to settle one point, “has or has not the secretary exceeded his authority in refusing permission to Dr. H. to complete the formalities of membership.” 8

The “celebrated case” of Dr. Hawxhurst was passed upon in 1878. He was elected to membership the preceding year, Dr. John P. Stoddard, chairman of the Committee on Admissions, reporting in his favor.

Dr. Jerome asked if the applicant were not a graduate of the University of Michigan. Being answered in the affirmative, he said that he opposed his election on the ground that a resolution respecting his professional standing and that of his whole class was now pending before the State Society and before the American Medical Association. Until that was settled he moved to lay the application on the table.

Dr. Brodie replied that the applicant was among the first at this meeting, and his name was withheld just because this resolution on the University question was pending, but the society had laid the matter on the table for another year and there was no guarantee that it would not be so disposed of for an indefinite period. Until it was authoritatively settled no one could be justly excluded on that ground.

Dr. Stoddard stated that, as yet, the amendment embodied in the fourth resolution relative to the admission of member had not been acted upon, and as far as the records show, Dr. Hawxhurst was an eligible candidate.

“The motion to lay on the table was lost.”

“The report was accepted.”

“The above report was rendered but a short time before the close of the session, and Dr. Hawxhurst, failing to comply with the necessary requisites, is not a member of the society.”

Thus the secretary's minutes. 13

At the opening of the meeting in 1878 the secretary announced:

“In calling the roll I have not called the name of Dr. Hawxhurst who was recommended for membership at the last annual meeting of this society, but who failed to complete his membership by signing the constitution and by-laws and paying his initiation fees and dues.

“It is due Dr. Hawxhurst, however, to say that he applied to complete his membership on the twenty-third day of last month. I declined to decide the question of his right to complete his membership after the lapse of eleven months by receiving his fees and presenting him the constitution and by-laws for his signature. I shrank from the responsibility of deciding the question for the following reasons.”

Here follows the report of a case in 1872 where two physicians had been elected, had been called away, and on motion had been permitted to complete 02012their membership by remitting initiation fees and authorizing the secretary to append their names to the constitution. One only of these complied. What would be his duty, the secretary enquired, if after five years he offers to complete membership, and could Dr. Hawxhurst complete his after the lapse of eleven months.

The secretary said, “I have not arrogated to myself the right to decide, and respectfully submit the matter for the consideration of the society.”

The cases were not, evidently, regarded parallel. Dr. Beech moved to amend the minutes by adding “and adopted” after “accepted.” He also thought that the report of non-action of Dr. Hawxhurst “does not constitute any part of the transactions of this society,” and moved that they be stricken from the minutes. This motion prevailed.

Dr. Cox found that the names of Drs. Kate Lindsay and D. C. Hawxhurst of Battle Creek were omitted from the list of members elected and moved to insert their names.

The president, Dr. Pratt, announced that it had been the usual custom to include names only of those whose memberships were completed.

Dr. Jerome, discussing the motion, thought the construction of Dr. Ranney was proper. “He refrained from paying his initiation fee and signing the constitution and by-laws.” “We don't propose,” Jerome declared, “at this late day to indorse this gentleman during these eleven months.” He sounds a note of genuine alarm. “We are living in a pretty fast age. We don't know the status of Dr. Hawxthurst during this period of time—during this eleven months that he has not been an accountable member of this body. During that period, let his conduct have been what it might, this organization could not have placed their hand upon him and held him to any account.” (The implied sponsoring of the venerable and upright Dr. Cox, Dr. Hawxthurst's townsman, was apparently ignored.) “We might as well, sir, assume that because the directors of a bank should endorse a man's paper as being good today and so recommend him for a discount to the officers of the bank he may come up eleven months afterwards and say, ‘I have the endorsement of the directors of this bank and assume you will cash this paper for me.’ This case is parallel, Mr. President.”

An amendment to the amendment was made to refer the cases to the Committee on Admissions.

Dr. Brodie said he had intended to say nothing, but as usual he said a mouthful. “The position of Dr. Hawxthurst is different. You all know that when the committee reported it was already about four o'clock, just before the election of officers. They came in with this report. My friend, Dr. Jerome, moved to lay the report on the table. It was not laid on the table. It was voted down. Then the report was voted upon by the society and Dr. Hawxthurst was elected. The society then went into the election of officers and did some other business, and the society then adjourned. Dr. Hawxthurst didn't happen to be in at the time: if he had been he would have signed the 02113constitution and paid his fees. There is no society in the world as far as I know, and I have been connected with a great many, but what any person is allowed until the next meeting at least to fulfill his obligation.”

Dr. Bartholomew thought if the minutes were to be amended at all that it should be done by adding the words “and completed their membership.” Dr. Kedzie was of similar opinion. “Dr. Dunster said this whole matter could be easily settled; that it was simply a question of fact whether or not Dr. Hawxthurst was elected at the last meeting of the society—at the bottom of page 26 it says ‘there were elected during the session the following named gentlemen.’ Why simply include those who did complete their membership? The amendment with substitute offered by Dr. Bartholomew is certainly one that will fail to complete the connection. He did not know whether the secretary intended to include all who were elected or only those who completed their membership.”

“The secretary said it was his intention to give the names only of those who——”

Professor Dunster (interrupting), “It was a gross abuse of the English language.” (Applause, hisses, and other confusion.)

Eventually an amendment was adopted, reading, “The following persons were elected, but did not sign the constitution and by-laws nor pay their initiation fees,” after which a communication was read from Dr. Hawxthurst asking that he be permitted to complete his membership, pay dues and sign the constitution.

A lively discussion followed, after which the question was referred to the Committee on Admissions for explicit ruling, which committee decided that the secretary had acted with propriety and recommended that the by-laws be amended to read “every member on admission and before the close of the session at which he was admitted shall pay the sum of two dollars as an initiation fee and sign the constitution and by-laws, nor shall he be entitled to the rights of membership until the same is done.”

The chairman of the committee, Dr. Oakley, expressed to Dr. Hawxthurst the opinion that if he would withdraw his request “he will get to be a member just as quick and just as easy.” This is Dr. Hawxthurst did.

He (Dr. Hawxthurst) was evidently a man of principle and independent thinking. His life came to an untimely end in Paris, in 1882, in consequence of smallpox. He was a graduate of the University of Michigan in dentistry as well as medicine, and it was his belief that dentistry should be considered a specialty in medicine, and that every dentist should have a thorough medical education. ‡

‡ Resolutions of the Calhoun County Medical Association in 1882 anent his death recite that “in a foreign land he was adding to his already well supplied fund of professional knowledge,” and that “this association and the profession at large, have lost an active, efficient and honored member.” Signed, S. S. French and Edward Cox, Committee. 2

The above incident is treated at length because of its bearing upon the larger question decided the same day as to the relation of the University medical faculty and graduates to the State Medical Society. That the injecting 02214of this personal matter with its direct appeal to individual sympathies and sense of fairness was largely influential in the later vote (q.v.) the writer has always believed.

The war, more or less “merry” according to the varying viewpoints of participants and those observing it from a distance and in detachment, began in an early period of Michigan medical history. Among the manuscripts of the late Dr. A. I. Sawyer of Monroe, the deus ex machina on the homeopathic stage, there is reference to a bill which passed one house in the legislature of 1847 making it a state prison offense to practice homeopathy; and his correspondence on the subject of its establishment and perpetuation at the University, replete with invective, plenteous in censure and exuberant in verbosity, appears in half a score of letter books in possession of the Michigan Historical Commission. Verily, he had his vexations. Sparks flying upward had nothing on him, and pale as symbols of the trouble he endured. Supported at times by an energetic triumvirate but oftener lacking their coöperation, his lines certainly fell in unpleasant places.

It is related of one of his cohorts that he was an intense man and impulsive. He enjoyed a game of pedro and was accustomed to engage in this pastime in a group of those of similar likings. Once in a game he declared that he had played “low.” This was disputed by an opponent. Dr. ——insisted, the other was as unconvinced and reiterated his claim. Turning to another of the party, the doctor inquired, “Who played low? Didn't I?” The reply was, “No, I think he did.” Whereupon he retorted, “You're both——liars,” and opening the door of the stove, threw in the cards, and departed in high dudgeon from the room.

It requires no extraordinary perspicacity to infer from this that head-on collisions were no rarity, and that Dr. Sawyer's note in correspondence was not infrequently one of discouragement, not to say near-despair. Indeed, he makes no secret of the fact that exalted endeavor and unselfish “service”—to employ a term much stressed in noonday luncheon clubs—not rarely failed of appreciation, and what he writes goes far to justify Dr. Maclean's prediction at the meeting of the State Medical Society in 1876 that “the situation cannot last much longer,” and that homeopathy could be strangled “right in the University if left alone for two years.”

Fruitless efforts to accomplish the end in view were made by the homeopathists year after year. “In the Supreme Court yesterday,” the Detroit Review of Medicine and Pharmacy (1868) reveals, “the Attorney General presented, through William Jennison, Esq., a petition on behalf of the people asking the Court to grant an order requiring the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued to compel them to appoint a professor of homeopathy in the medical department.”

The regents were, indeed, tardy, having had the “power” since 1850 to accomplish this. In 1855, this “power” to determine salaries, etc., was restricted 02315by the proviso “that there shall always be at least one professor of homeopathy in the department of medicine.”

The petition states that “although nearly thirteen years have elapsed since the approval of the act, and though the regents have frequently been petitioned ... they have always neglected and refused ... in direct violation of the law.”

Dr. William Lewitt of Ann Arbor, having learned that the secretary of the Central Michigan Homeopathic Society had announced that “Drs. Jeffries and Backus will give free medical and Dr. Lewitt free surgical treatment at Ann Arbor, to all patients from abroad during the college course of the University,” hastens to deny this in a letter of January 8, 1869. It was done without his knowledge or consent, he says, and adds, “I disclaim all coöperation with homeopaths professionally, and discountenance anything that would be in opposition to the medical department of the University with which I was co-laborer for nine years, and most sincerely wish for its continued prosperity, and do most bitterly oppose the action of the homeopaths in regard to the medical department, as their connection with it would be followed by its certain downfall.

“It is not the teachings of homeopathy they are seeking, but a recognition of their fabulous theory under the broad mantle of the University of Michigan, to give character and standing to their system which is now without foundation or recognition.”

Dr. Lewitt then takes liberties with the remarks of another long-suffering character as follows: “Skin for skin; yea, all will a homeopath give for a recognition in the University of Michigan. (Job II, 4.)” 3

The homeopathic department was established in 1875. Smouldering embers of discontent burst into violent flame that year in the State Society, following a resolution introduced by Dr. G. W. Topping:

“That the Michigan State Medical Society entertains now as ever the most friendly feelings toward the medical department of the State University and fondly desires that its future prosperity and honorable reputation may excel that which it has achieved in the past. In view of the recent action of its Regents in reference to the introduction of homeopathic professors and students, we believe a crisis has now arisen in its history which justifies and perhaps demands from the regular profession of the state a frank expression of opinion. We believe that the attempt to associate regular and homeopathic students in the same institution, to participate in the same lectures, to be a scheme impossible to carry out and one fraught with disaster, and perhaps dishonor to those who attempt its execution; an attempt likely to arrest the prosperity and destroy the usefulness of said medical department. Any such attempt to bring about such an unnatural and, to us, repugnant affiliation will meet with our decided disapproval.”

Dr. Klein of Detroit did not intend any disrespect to Dr. Topping, but he deemed it wise to lay the resolution on the table. He, therefore, made a motion to so dispose of it, and the motion was “unanimously carried.”

On the table it remained. The following year Dr. Foster Pratt offered this resolution, which was adopted:

“That a committee of nine members be now elected by this society to whom all resolutions and motions relating to the medical department of the University shall be referred without reading and without debate.”

Pursuant to this, Drs. Pratt, Jerome, and Cutter were elected by ballot, 02416and on motion of Dr. Rynd, retired and nominated the rest of the committee as follows: Drs. G. Chittock, Jackson; G. K. Johnson, Grand Rapids; J. A. Brown, Detroit; J. Hamilton, Tecumseh; H. B. Baker, Lansing; and J. Andrews, Paw Paw.

The committee thus composed bears an ominously partisan aspect. Of the nine members, six voted, in 1878, with the forty-two in favor of, and one only with those against, the rejection of medical students graduated from the University. The names of the two others (who probably did not attend the meeting) nowhere appear, either among the “yeas” or with the sixty-two who voted “nay” and saved the situation for the students. The six were without exception recognized leaders in the society—influential members all—and still they failed to disturb the sense of fairness which deep-down has always been characteristic of a very large majority of the medical profession.

The report of the committee of nine at the 1876 meeting is lengthy, formal, and goes deeply into the history of homeopathy as related to the University—the legislation on the subject—the attitude at different periods of the Board of Regents and the then status of faculty and students. Suggestions are given of which the following are of especial interest:

“Fourth—The medical department of the institution has been the sacrifice offered to appease the legislature, and to build up or maintain other department.”

“Fifth—That state management of theological or medical schools will, in the nature of things, be disastrous to their welfare, if not actually destructive of their life.”

“Sixth—The it remains for the medical profession to provide for its own education, and, like theologians, to conduct its own schools and take care of its own interests.”

The recommendation is made that inasmuch as all or nearly all of the graduating class of 1876 entered the University before the establishment of the homeopathic department, “and, inasmuch, also, as no homeopathic students have been graduated this year,” that they be admitted members of his society—on the usual conditions.

Four resolutions were offered as follows:

RESOLVED (1)—That we are not content with the existing situation in the medical department of the University, because in our opinion it is not calculated to maintain or advance medicine as a science, nor is it consistent with the honor or interests of the profession.

RESOLVED (2)—That a state under our form of government cannot successfully teach either medicine or theology, and that the medical profession ought to be its own teacher and the guardian of its own honor.

RESOLVED (3)—That we regard all legislative interference with th government of the University as unconstitutional, wrong in principle and harmful in its results.

RESOLVED (4)—That section 4 of the constitution of this State Society be amended so as to read as follows, viz.: “Section 4. The resident members shall be elected by vote of a majority present at any regular meeting, their eligibility having previously been reported upon by a Committee on Admission: PROVIDED, that no person shall be admitted to membership who practices or professes to practice in accordance with any so-called ‘pathy’ or sectarian school of medicine, or who has recently graduated from a medical school whose professors teach or assist in teaching those who propose to graduate in or practice irregular medicine.”

Respectfully Submitted, Foster Pratt, Chairman G. K. Johnson J. Andrews J. K. Jerome G. Chittock J. A. Brown H. B. Baker

02517

As to the fourth resolution; Drs. Cutter and Hamilton gave a minority report in opposition, agreeing to the others.

And the next year the neighbors lifted up their voices on the subject and brought strong pressure to bear.

The societies, Maine Medical, Fountain County (Indiana), Kalamazoo Medical, St. Joseph Valley (Michigan), Saginaw Academy of Medicine, all approved; the Branch County (Michigan) Medical Society disapproved, and the position of the Union Medical Society of Wayne, Washtenaw and Oakland Counties, as communicated, is ambiguous.

Decided acrimony developed from this report and the discussion thereon, although final action on the fourth resolution was deferred, and one resignation “doth tread upon another's heels so fast they follow.”

The first came from Professor G. E. Frothingham: To the Michigan State Medical Society: Since a resolution was adopted by this society on the 11th instant which in my opinion declares a purely commercial policy as its guide, and repudiates the ethical principle of the American Code, which makes our profession a self-sacrificing, benevolent, and humane calling, and by another resolution the society has virtually declared regular medicine unworthy a position among the sciences, and also a principle which fully carried out would prevent the from proper care of the health and lives of its citizens, would abolish public medical care of the sick and insane; also all state and other Boards of Health, and carry our civilization, in this respect, back to the condition of the dark ages I can no longer, consistent with my views of ethics, retain my connection with this Society, and hereby tender my resignation of membership, and ask for its immediate acceptance, or such other removal as it may please you to grant. G. E. Frothingham, M.D.

Dr. Pratt moved that the resignation be accepted.

Carried.

Dr. Rynd asked permission to read the following communication: To the President of the State Medical Society: Sir:—From the standpoint of the undersigned, the action of your association its present session has been marked by a narrowness, bigotry, and injustice disgraceful to an honorable and learned profession. Without exercising the courage to array itself directly against the University, it has become the agent of a private school to accomplish its virtual dismembership (“dismemberment?”). You do not propose any measures of relief for the state of medical affairs at Ann; you simply propose to destroy, when you cannot control, an institution supported by the liberality of our people in your own interests, and for your own end. You desire its overthrow. You have been ably assisted by the members of the State Board of Health, itself the creature of the legislature, aided and supported by all the prejudices, bigotry, and despotism of past ages. Your conduct during the session has been unfair to a respectable minority. You have tried to cut off the expression and comparison of views by the tactics of the politician. When the friends of the University honestly asked your counsel, your reply has been a notice of its disfranchisement. Not having any sympathy with the course which you have taken, preferring personal liberty to the despotism of ideas having their origin with the burning of witches and other humane acts of a similar nature; choosing rather to exercise my personal independence than to remain under the despotism of an association which represents nothing but itself; believing that true science is not the exclusive property of your association, and that its interests are not prompted by an illiberal code, I desire, respectfully, to withdraw from membership in your association. C. Rynd.

“During the reading of this paper it was objected to a s containing 02618language unparliamentary, and disrespectful to the society, but the reading was sustained by the president, Dr. Brodie.

“Dr. Jerome moved that Dr. Rynd be expelled from the society; but this did not meet with much favor and the resolution was lost.

“Dr. Pratt moved the resignation of Dr. Rynd be accepted and his paper laid on the table.

“Carried.

“Dr. Parmenter tendered his resignation as member of the Committee on Legislation, as member of the Judicial Council, and vice president of the society.”

Laid on the table.

The next year there was offered what might be termed a near-resignation of Dr. Maclean. It was certainly capable of construction by the secretary as formal, but was declared by Dr. Maclean to be a personal letter.

The storm broke in all its violence in 1878. The debate upon the fourth resolution, spicy and well worth reproducing in extenso was participated in by Dr. Jerome, who called the teaching an “hermaphrodite arrangement,” by Dr. Brodie, who declared that the proposed amendment was “as much as to say that if Rev. George Duffield of the City of Lansing in his pulpit next Sunday should address his congregation and in that congregation should find Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, etc., that he violates thereby the tenets of his church because he preaches his doctrine of religion to those men.” He was greeted with “hisses” when he averred that “come right down to the gist of it, if there had never been any rivalry in teaching medicine in this state the question would never have come up.” “What does it matter to Dr. Ford,” he asked, “or to the State of Michigan, how many men come in and hear him, as long as he don't [sic] endorse any of them that don't belong to his class.” Dr. Toner “never wrote that resolution,” he said. “That resolution came from Michigan, I was told.” He could not see where the necessity (for an amendment) comes in, but could “see where the animus comes in very well.”

At this juncture Dr. Carstens inquired what “animus” was and received the reply that “it is a word used by writers to show why certain people did certain things. And——” (Laughter and confusion.)

Dr. Eugene Smith hurled back to Dr. Brodie “the base insinuations as far as some of the members of this association are concerned that we are satellites of the Detroit Medical College,” and called for an explanation.

Dr. Bartholomew said, “It is all very well to cry ‘peace, peace,’ but there is no peace, and there will be no peace so long as truth and falsehood remain to contend.” He called attention to the fact that in 1855 the legislature was induced to pass a law which required the regents to appoint a professor of homeopathy in the University but the regents declined to obey the law as unconstitutional: the homeopaths were beaten in the courts, but continued agitation until another law was passed creating a homeopathic branch of the 02719University and a liberal appropriation made conditional upon its establishment that the regents took steps to fulfill the law “and thereupon all of our professors resigned their positions thereby defeating the project.” Dr. Bartholomew thought they did right then, and that they made a great mistake in not resigning again, when the “second much larger bribe” was offered to the college if they would introduce homeopathy.

Dr. Maclean explained his form of certification of students—“I hereby certify that I have examined the following named students of the homeopathic college in surgery other than medical, and that their answers were for the most part ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ as the case might be.”

Dr. Connor denied that the Detroit Medical College had officially claimed or in any way indicated that it would refuse certificates from the University.

Dr. Whelan approved the amendment, and believed we “take too narrow a view,” but said he was no friend of homeopathy, never got any favors from homeopaths, or counseled with them.

In explaining his vote among the sixty-two Dr. H. B. Shank of Lansing said, “While I have always regretted the fact that the professors of our schools did not do just as I would have done under the circumstances, leave the institution and not stand where they stand today; yet I have had doubts as to what my duty was to the profession and to the institution. I have asked myself this question: Here are men who have been graduated; they have come and sat down by the side of me in practice, and men that I have no doubt are better educated than I was when I left the school and took my position among the regulars in my profession. I have asked myself this question: What would I do if that young man should find himself in trouble and would come and ask me to go and counsel with him? All the better feeling of my nature told me to go and counsel with that young man and help him out of his trouble, if I could. Now, gentlemen, I shall do that. I speak of those who are practicing regular medicine; not those who carry out the principles of homeopathy, because I never have consulted with them, and God helping me I never will. I say, then, I would go and associate myself with this graduate of that school at Ann Arbor, and consult with him. Now shall I not associate with him on this floor professionally? I hold that if I voted upon the affirmative of this question I will never associate with this man because he is not fit to associate with; and I will not associate with those off this floor that I would not associate with here on this floor professionally. This being my conviction I shall vote against this amendment.”

This seems to the reviewer incontrovertible as a bit of logic.

The resolution was lost by a vote of 42 yeas, 62 nays and the record of the vote will always be of interest for the array of intellect, for the high ethical standards and sincerity of purpose of the participants in both camps. Old time business partnership did not prevent divergence of views on this important matter.

In his customary classical style, Dr. H. A. Cleland, one of the editors of the Detroit Lancet discusses the “University Question” which has straddled 02820the neck of this society as did the “Old Man of the Mountain” that of “Sinbad the Sailor” as follows: 2

“There was one point made in the discussion of this question, which we hope will disabuse the mind of some members of the profession of an error, to which interested parties have striven to commit them, viz: that the ‘University War’ as it has been called was initiated and maintained by the Detroit Medical College. The source of this statement, and the continued stream of falsehood which has drenched the profession anent this point, is too well known to need mention; but its motive was too apparent and the falsehood too clumsy to meet with the success that was expected. The originators of it paid but a poor compliment indeed to the manliness and independence of the profession of the state to suppose that it could for a moment be manipulated by a few in Detroit for mercenary motives. If the truth were told by them, the backbone of the opposition to the medical department of the University, as it now exists, is its old alumni, who seek to save their Alma Mater from a misalliance which they deem disgraceful to her, and this they are striving to do, in no personal spirit of rancor to any one, but actuated by what seems to them the best interests of their Alma Mater, and the profession of the state in general.”

Report of Committee on Charges Pending in American Medical Association

Mr. President and Gentlemen:

The undersigned, who were appointed by this Society at its last annual meeting, held at Lansing, to defend the charges made against this society at the meeting of the American Medical Association in Chicago, 1877, for “irregular and unethical conduct,” and referred to the Judicial Council of that body for action and its meeting in Buffalo, in 1878, respectfully report, that they attended the said meeting in Buffalo, and the Judicial Council, after consideration of the said charges, reported that “there was no clause in either the constitution, by-laws, or code of ethics, as they now exist, under which the charges against the Michigan State Medical Society can be sustained and adjudicated.” Dr. J.R. Bronson, of Massachusetts, then offered the following preamble and resolutions:

WHEREAS, By the report of the Judicial Council, submitted this day, we are informed that the ethical code of this association is imperfect, in that it does not recognize by its letter a conceded violation of the spirit of our profession in its relation to irregular medicine; therefore

RESOLVED, that said Council be instructed to submit to the association at this meeting for its consideration, an amendment covering this omission.

This was referred to all members of the Judicial Council as a committee.

The Judicial Council, as a committee, reported the following amendment and addition to paragraph 1, Article 1, of the second division of the code of ethics, under the general heading “Of the Duties of Physicians to Each Other and to the Profession at Large,” and the special heading, “Duties for the Support of Professional Character.” The same, when finally adopted, to be added at the end and to constitute a part of paragraph 1 of Article 1, as follows:

“And hence it is considered derogatory to the interests of the public and the honor of the profession, for any physician or teacher to aid in any way the medical teaching or graduation of persons knowing them to be supporters and intended practitioners of some irregular and exclusive system of medicine.”

This being an amendment to the laws, it was laid on the table until the next meeting.

At the recent meeting of the American Medical Association held at Atlanta, this amendment to the code was taken from the table, and after an exhaustive examination into its merits by Dr. Dunster, a delegate from this society, it was, on motion of Dr. Pratt, laid on the table for one year. W. Brodie, H.O. Hitchcock, Committee.

02921

In the session of the Michigan State Medical Society in 1879 a paper was presented by Dr. H.O. Hitchcock upon “A Case of Fracture of the Acetabulum, with Dislocation of the Femur.” By request of its author, the paper was read by Professor Dunster of the University. “As the reading developed the fact that the paper contained personal reflections derogatory to several members of the society, the further reading thereof was objected to. The reading was continued, however, until recess, when at 12:30 the society adjourned.

Dr. Jerome said, “I would move, sir, in view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that here has been no opportunity to read these papers, that the further reading of Dr. Hitchcock's paper be postponed.”

Dr. Brodie said he had no objections if the gentlemen would accept as an amendment the words “and printed.”

Dr. Jerome objected on the ground that it would cost too much, and for other reasons.

Dr. Hitchcock said the balance of the paper would require but fifteen or twenty minutes.

Dr. Jerome's motion was here put and lost.

Dr. Jerome moved that those who had papers there and who were intending to leave the city before an opportunity could be given to read them be requested to file them with the secretary.

Carried.

Dr. Maclean moved that the society hold an evening session.

Dr. Eugene Smith suggested that as Dr. Dunster was such a good reader, it might be well to leave the papers in his hands, to be read by him. (Laughter.)

Dr. Dunster said he had a very heavy contract on his hands already.

A motion to hold an evening session was lost, and the motion to read the balance of Dr. Hitchcock's paper was carried.

Professor Palmer, of the University, then offered the following:

RESOLVED, That the paper of Dr. Hitchcock, as it contains strictures upon the conduct of members of this society, be referred to the Judicial Council, and that the members of the society interested have the privilege of appearing before the Council and of presenting any counter statements they may choose, and that said Council may order the publication of the Transactions of the Society, of the paper of Dr. Hitchcock, and of such counter statements as may be presented, or any part of such papers as in their discretion they deem proper.

Dr. Carstens, of Detroit, called for a division of the question. The president stated that the vote would be taken, first, “on the reference of the paper to the Judicial Council.” This was put and carried. The remainder of Professor Palmer's resolution, after some discussion, was laid on the table.

Dr. Hitchcock then expressed his desire to withdraw the paper, and by a vote of the society he was permitted to do so.

It was of this paper, the scientific points of which are “full of interest,” but the paper “so full of personalities as to detract very materially from its value as a scientific article,” that Dr. Mulheron approvingly and amiably 03022writes, “Dr. Hitchcock, however, in a measure atoned for the reading of his paper by withholding it from the society after it was read, and thus prevented the possibility of its publication in the printed Transactions of the Society.” 8

At the meeting of the Michigan State Medical Society in 1879, the question of admission of a member was under discussion, whereupon the following passage at arms:

Dr. A. B. Palmer, of the University of Michigan, said, “It seems to me that the committee has established the precedent of not going behind the action of local societies. In one case here yesterday of some one who was refused admission to the Detroit Medical Society, without any investigation the candidate was rejected. This seemed to establish the precedent of going according to the decisions of the local societies. Now, let us follow that precedent. I think it a proper one, for we cannot be engaged here with all these minute discussions. If the local society which has examined the case has exonerated him, it seems to me that we should not go back of that. I therefore move that the last resolution which was offered be laid on the table.”

Dr. Foster Pratt: “I told, Mr. President, that in our state organization it should be the unvarying rule not to receive as members here those who are rejected by the local societies; but I do not believe that the converse of that proposition is just, wise or politic. I do not understand, sir, that we are under any obligations, or that it may always be wise to receive every one that may be acquitted upon charges by a local society, or every one that may be received by a local society. Now, this is a question which properly belongs to the Judicial Council, and I don't propose to express any opinion about it here. It is a matter which, as I think, should have been referred to the Judicial Council by the Committee on Admissions, and it is because I want the action of the Judicial Council upon it that I moved to refer it there. If the Judicial Council shall concur in its recommendation with the Committee on Admissions, we then have nothing further to say about it.”

Dr. Shank: “Will you allow me to ask the doctor what is his object in referring this matter to the Judicial Council?”

Dr. Pratt: “I am stating it.”

“After the roll call [State Medical Society meeting, 1879] Dr. Eugene Smith preferred charges against a member of the society, an ophthalmologist, for having the fact of his being a specialist mentioned on his sign. This heinous thing is said to be in contravention of the venerable Code of Ethics, and with the formality and becoming gravity the charges were referred to the Judicial Council, who will deliberate on them for twelve months.”

Mulheron writes hopefully, but not confidently, of the coming meeting of the State Medical Society in 1880. “The question of homeopathy in the University being out of the way, and the question which disturbed last year's meeting being removed, there occurs to us nothing now which could be framed into an excuse for a contention. But te inventive genius of the human mind 03123is usually equal to the perversity thereof, and if the will exists there will be found a way of kicking up a row.” 8

Ways there were, doubtless, and the self-restraint for a time exercised was remarkable.

The boys remained quietly in the trenches for several Christmases, their trigger fingers nervously twitching, waiting for the zero hour. It struck with a bang following Dr. G. W. Topping's presidential address—very appropriately delivered at Kalamazoo—and was continued over the failure of the Committee on Admissions to report on schedule time. (“These annual meetings,” said Dr. Foster Pratt, “are always promotive of socially among us and they tend very powerfully to cultivate in our ranks an esprit de corps which is a strong unifying sentiment and which greatly increases our efficiency and power when acting as a body on any question of medical policy.”)

Esprit there was aplenty and the gentle breezes of '78 and '79 are as soughing of the pines compared to the tempest evoked in '83. After some flattering words extended to Kalamazoo, references to the “Divine Art,” to superstition, ethics, quackery, and the early Romans preventive measures, “te indefatigable secretary of the State Board of Health and his zealous and efficient associates,” vital statistics and the “increased prevalence of small-pox” in 1882; after discussing learnedly the work of Kock, Pasteur and others, and handing to Jenner and Hippocrates each a garland of laurel, and president got down to business:

“During the last decade the number of medical schools has increased about 70 per cent, and the annual report of the Commissioner of Education for the United States shows that the number of medical students therein has trebled. From the same authority we learn that the graduates in medicine in the United States in 1880 were more than three times as many as in law, and about twelve times as many as in theology.

“While it is true that some of these 110 medical colleges are mere ‘diploma mills,’ graduating from 50 per cent to, in one instance, 83 per cent of their students, yet there remains a goodly number of them that are honorably and ably conducted, and are effectively teaching the science and art of medicine.

“Of the 585 people which an equal distribution would allot to each physician, only a very small percentage are ever likely to become paying patients to him even if they should be so unfortunately as to need his services; therefore, many physicians will necessarily have to seek other employment for support after having spent their time and means in acquiring a profession by which they had hoped to make a living.

“The cheapening of a professional education through state support allures many young men into the profession of medicine who would otherwise have entered into some other vocation more beneficial both to themselves and the public. It must be evident to all that this country is already overstocked with physicians; therefore, it cannot be necessary to tax the people to produce a more redundant supply.

03224

“Our state medical schools are among the most active agents in producing this oversupply of physicians. Yea more! by means of the hospitals under their charge, and state support, they are enabled to offer cheaper medical and surgical treatment than can be proffered by the general practitioner who cannot resort to taxation to make good his exhausted finances. The state medical school is a matter familias who gives the world a numerous progeny, and then does her best to cut off and destroy their means of support.

“University hospital is filled with patients who go there through economic considerations, many of them being abundantly able to fee a physician at home, and would do so were not cheaper terms offered them at Ann Arbor. These hospitals are extensively advertised at the public expense, and individuals from far and near are induced to abandon their home physicians for the more economical terms which hospitals under state support are enabled to offer them. These hospitals occasionally give us something unique in the way of advertisement. A specimen of this character may be found in the address of Bishop Gillespie, chairman of the State Board of Corrections and Charities, before the eighth annual convention of superintendents of the poor, in Lansing, in 1881.

“The bishop says he addressed all the physicians of the poorhouses in the state, asking if there were not persons in his house who would be benefited by surgical or medical treatment at Ann Arbor. Yet to his disappointment only eleven of these physicians made any reply, and of that number but one thought it necessary to send his patients to University hospital for treatment, notwithstanding the fact that one of the hospital surgeons had assured the bishop by letter that ‘the great majority [of his cases] can only be treated safely and satisfactorily in a hospital where there are plenty of assistants and all sorts of appliances,’ and ‘that at a very moderate rate of charge my [his] own work in the hospital for the session of 1879-1880 would amount at the least to thirty thousand dollars.’

“The contemplation of this magnificent hospital work seems to have so affected the bishop's mind as to make the question of expense to the people seem to him altogether trifling and insignificant, and he rhapsodically exclaimed, ‘Don't speak of money if the eyes of the blind may be opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped, the lame man may leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sin! If God has given such powers to men and means, trifle not with gift of God. Refuse it not to save taxes.’

“Such extravagant eulogies of the University hospital and its surgeons, by the bishop, coupled with his assumption that the local physicians of the county houses of the state were not competent to treat the diseased poor, and his fervid appeal that they be sent at public expense to the University hospital for treatment, is a melancholy sample of the way that well-meaning and good-natured clergymen are often betrayed into the injudicious use of their profession to advertise certain hospitals and surgeons, to supply them with patients, and wide-spread, unique, and influential advertisement, at the expense of the tax-payers, and of the worthy but needy general practitioners 03325of the state. For the work done in these hospitals and medical schools we offer neither censure nor criticism. It is their influence upon the welfare of the medical profession at large, which is here discussed.

“It is well known to you all that for some years past the relations of the Michigan State Medical Society, as well as a large percentage of the physicians of the state, not members of this society, have not been just as pleasant and harmonious with the medical department of the University of Michigan as in days of yore.

“For a house to be divided against itself is equally undesirable and injurious to a family, a party, or a profession. Whatever be the relative success of the contending parties the common cause must suffer loss. Like the quarrel of sect with sect in the church, or the bitter strife for ascendancy in the state, no good can come of such unfortunate controversies, but very much of evil to the best interests of medical science and the state itself.

“The medical department of the University of Michigan is an existing fact. That being the case, I think we may profitably consider the best means of correcting the abuses existing in it, and the evils it inflicts upon the profession. With this object in view I shall venture to express myself somewhat freely, and at length, without asking or expecting the endorsement of my views by this society, or by the ruling powers of the University, further than they believe them to promotive of the best interests of the profession, and of the University medical school.

“That there are evils existing in the medical department of the University which need correction, I believe to be evident to all fair-minded, impartial men. To the end that something may be done to correct these evils and to bring the medical school of the University in proper and profitable harmony with the medical profession, I venture to suggest for your consideration the following subjects:

1. The best means of securing a higher standard of study and attainment in the profession generally.

2. The possibility and desirableness of combined action between the Board of Regents and the State Medical Society in securing such legislation as is now generally needed to project the people against the increasing number of irresponsible and unqualified medical practitioners.

“Illinois and other states discriminate between the qualifications of practitioners; why should not this state do the same?

3. The manifest injustice of giving gratuitous treatment at the University hospital to patients able to pay for medical services, and for whom such treatment was not originally intended.

4. The still greater injustice of treating at Ann Arbor non-resident patients by members of the medical college faculty in term time, or during the session of the college, and receiving compensation therefor, unless the same be paid over into the University treasury.

5. The extensive and unwarranted methods of advertising which institutes invidious comparisons between the professors and the profession at 03426large, which it not only indulged in by the professors but by officers of the state to whom no such right is given.

6. Whether the profession at large might not be consulted in the nomination of professors, and if so, to what extent without detriment to the University, and such other matters as may be deemed expedient to secure harmony of action between the members of this society and the medical department of the University.

“It is easy to be seen that a large share, to say the least, of the medical profession of the state, has withdrawn its sympathy and confidence from the medical department of the University.

“Let these matters be fairly and fearlessly considered.”

The suggestion was acted upon with what must have been to Dr. Topping commendable, if not gratifying promptness. They were at least “fearlessly considered.”

“On motion of Dr. Brodie the thanks of the society were extended to the president for his able address and the same was referred to the Committee on Publication.” Whereupon Dr. A. B. Palmer of the University addressed the Chair as follows:

Dr. Palmer. “Mr. President, we all understand and recognize that a pretty decided attack has been made upon the medical department of the University of Michigan, and criticisms upon its procedures. I wish to inquire whether now, or at any future time, there will be an opportunity offered us to enter upon a degree of defense. I do not wish to be out of order, but it seems to me to be due to the University, and especially to those who have been laboring for years to sustain it, that some remarks be made on certain portions of the president's address.”

Dr. Brodie: “I understand this address contained but the formal opinion of the president. It has been received and referred to the committee. I don't see how it can be brought up for discussion now.”

Dr. Palmer: “Is there any method by which those concerned in the University may take up these points? It is not the desire of the society, of course they may suppress any statement.”

Dr. H. B. Shank: “I move that the vote by which this was referred to the Publishing Committee for publication, be reconsidered.”

Dr. Brodie: “Did the doctor vote in the affirmative?”

Dr. Shank: “I would ask why the gentleman asked that question? Is it for any parliamentary purpose? I ask if my opinion is not in order?”

Dr. Chase: “I rise to second the motion, and in seconding it I wish to say I didn't vote either way. I was under the impression that the president's address was not be discussed. There are many things stated in that address worthy of discussion. We ought to take up those points and discuss them in an intelligent and gentlemanly way.”

Dr. Tupper: “I move that the whole question be laid upon the table.”

03527

Dr. Shank: “Is that question debatable? I simply wanted to say——” Cries of “order, order.”

“——I don't want this thing choked down in this way. I hope the good sense of this society will vote down this motion to lay upon the table.”

The vice president, Dr. French, put the question.

Dr. Shank: “I call for a division.”

Dr. Brodie: “I call for the ayes and nays.”

Dr. Shank: “I ask if the call is not in order? I simply don't want this thing choked down. I want a fair expression of the society on this question. Not that it concerns me particularly, but I see a plain effort, on the part of some members here, to force this thing down our throats. I hope it will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Tyler: “I rise to a question of order. It seems to me this whole question is out of order, at the present time. The address has been referred to the Committee on Publication, consequently the whole question is settled. The only way to get at this question is to make a motion under the head of miscellaneous business. At the present time we cannot consider it.”

Dr. Shank: “Let me ask the gentleman if a motion to reconsider a motion is out of order?”

Dr. Tyler denied that any effort was being made to “choke anything down” the members' throats.

Dr. Pratt: “If you will allow me one moment, I can suggest a way out of the difficulty. I move that so much of the president's address as refers to the University be referred to a select committee of five. I do not believe there is any disposition here, on the part of anyone, to choke off free discussion.”

Dr. Shank: “I would ask Dr. Pratt whether after this is referred to the Committee on Publication, a portion can be taken from the committee without reconsideration!”

Dr. Pratt: “It has been frequently done in our society.”

Dr. Chase: “The motion to refer has been put and carried. Then a motion was made to reconsider. That would bring the paper again before the house. We cannot make a motion to lay that paper on the table before it is before the house.”

The vice president announced that the motion before the society was a motion to lay motion to reconsider on the state.

Dr. Palmer: “Does this dispose of the matter so that we cannot discuss it?”

The Vice President: “I have no doubt any gentleman can call it up under the head of miscellaneous business.”

Dr. Palmer: “That is satisfactory to me.”

The yeas and nays were demanded, on the motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Dr. Alvord: “Can those of us who have come in later have the opportunity of knowing what we are voting on?”

03628

The Vice President: “Gentlemen of the society, so many seem to misunderstand, that I feel called upon to state the question again.

“A motion was made and carried, tendering the president the thanks of the society, and referring his address to the Committee on Publication. Dr. Shank, after a little discussion, moved that that vote be reconsidered, so that the matter pertaining to the University might be up for discussion.”

Dr. Shank: “I made no such statement. I misunderstand myself if I made any such statement. I simply moved that we reconsider the vote by which that address was referred to the Committee on Publication.”

The Vice President (continuing): “Dr. Brodie moved to lay the whole question upon the table. That I declare to be undebatable.”

The ayes and nays were called, and the result of the vote announced. It stood 27 to 27.

Dr. Shank: “I would suggest that the secretary call the names of those who voted.”

Dr. Tupper: “I understand that on a tie vote the question would be lost.”

Dr. Shank: “Is it not customary to read the names of those who voted?”

At this point several members changed their votes.

The chair next announced that the vote stood 27 ayes to 28 nays.

The secretary read off the names.

Several gentlemen arose and complained that their names had not been called.

Dr. Jerome: “I think it quite possible. I know it is on the part of some who are on the other side of this question. For want of the payment of their dues, they are no longer members of this society. If such be the case in any of these instances, I ask to have the fact stated.”

Dr. Ranney: “Such is the case in several instances.”

Dr. Jerome: “After aa certain time the names of members not paying dues can be dropped.”

Dr. Shank: “Might I ask how long?”

Dr. Jerome: “I refer you to the secretary!”

Dr. Shank: “I supposed the gentleman was capable of explaining this entire matter.”

Dr. Jerome: “Capability is one thing, duty is another.”

The vice president announced that the motion to lay the motion to reconsider on the table, was lost. The question being upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which the president's address was referred to the Committee on Publication.

Dr. Shank: “I made that motion for the purpose of getting this address of the president back out of the hands of that committee, and before this society.”

The yeas and nays were called for.

Dr. Palmer hoped the yeas and nays would not be demanded.

Dr. Tupper: “This seems to have been from the beginning, a kill-time thing; I call for the ayes and nays.”

03729

The Chair explained that this would be attended with great difficulty, and Dr. Tupper withdrew the call.

Dr. Breakey: “It seems to me that this voting is being done under a misapprehension. I don't understand the effect of this is to prevent discussion. The president doest not desire it, nor do the friends of the University. My vote was given with this understanding. We are wasting too much time.”

Dr. Tyler: “I would be glad to see the whole matter postponed to be taken up under the head of miscellaneous business.”

Dr. Palmer: “An opportunity of replying to these strictures at any time will be satisfactory to me. I supposed the object was to prevent reply or discussion. If this is not the case, I am willing such arrangement should be made.”

Dr. Shank: “Let it be made now.”

Dr. Jerome: “I call Dr. Shank to order.”

Dr. Palmer: “Is the main question now on the president's address, open for discussion?”

The Chair: “It seems to me not. The object is to get it from the committee so it can be discussed.”

Dr. Jerome: “When this motion on the president's address was put I was not in the room; consequently I could not enter into any discussion. I think it quite possible that the matter had developed itself largely since. If there is any portion of the president's address which the society deems especially worthy of discussion, I am the last one to vote against discussion.”

The motion to reconsider the motion by which the president's address was referred to the Committee on Publication was carried by a vote of 36 to 27.

Dr. Pratt: “I wanted to make a motion some time ago. I now move that so much of the President's address as refers to questions touching the University be referred to a special committee of five, with instructions to report under the head of miscellaneous business tomorrow morning.”

Dr. Shank: “I move to amend by adding after the word ‘five’ the words ‘of which Dr. Palmer shall be chairman.’”

Dr. Palmer: “I never heard before of an accused party being his own judge.”

The amendment was lost.

The original motion prevailed.

The president resumed the chair.

Dr. Shank: “If there is no business before this society just now, I would ask for the report of the Committee on Admissions.”

The President: “We will now take up the report of the Committee on Publication. It is the next in the regular order of business.”

Dr. Shank: “Is it decided out of order to call for the report of the Committee on Admissions?”

03830

The President: “The regular order of business cannot be set aside except by vote.”

Dr. Shank: “In former meetings of this society, it has been customary for the Committee on Admissions to report early in order that persons who have made their applications may become members, and take part in the meetings. I wish to make a motion that the order of business be suspended to listen to that committee. I have never known applicants for membership to be left out in the cold so long.”

The President: “If the committee express a readiness to report, they can have an opportunity to do so.”

Dr. Breakey: “The committee have not been able to meet together as yet.”

Dr. Shank: “I mean that the order of business be suspended for the purpose of getting the report of the Committee on Admissions, as far as they are able to make it.”

Dr. Maclean: “I second the motion. It is to me very strange that the committee takes so long to report. The fact that applicants are endorsed by two accredited members of the society should be sufficient. I think it unfair to exclude the applicants for membership so long.”

Dr. Brodie: “The strictures of the gentleman are very good; but members of the committee are not supposed to forego all their interests in the society to meet together and look over their business. I don't know that we should be deprived of participating in the work of this body ourselves.”

Dr. Vaughan: “I have attended several meetings of this society, and never before have I known the Committee on Admissions to wait so long before reporting. There is an apparent intention at least, to choke off those who have come here to join this society.”

The President: “I have no power to tell the committee to report. They have expressed their unreadiness. The report of the Committee on Publication is now in order.”

Dr. Shank: “Is my motion out of order? It was to suspend the order of business for the purpose of requesting the Committee on Admissions to make a report.”

Dr. Jerome: “Dr. Brodie and I were in the midst of the society this forenoon. Our time was occupied entirely with the session. When the committee came to ascertain the number of applicants it did not see any time for action unless the members took themselves out of the society this afternoon. They wish to make a report satisfactory to themselves and the society, and do not see the necessity of pressing the question of immediate action; consequently they are here doing the business of the society. After the meeting we propose to have a session of the committee; we propose to investigate every man's relations to the profession. We have no desire to keep members out, and any charge to the contrary is not correctly made. I apprehend the reason of all this lies back of what appears on the surface. I have previously 03931understood that this was necessary; so necessary, in fact, that every other branch of business should be laid aside.”

Dr. Shank: “What is the question?”

Dr. Jerome: “I was answering my friend, Dr. Shank, and speaking on behalf of the committee.”

Dr. Shank: “The Chair has not entertained my motion.”

The president ruled the motion out of order.

Dr. Shank: “I move, out of charity to this committee who have acknowledged their inability to make this report, who are trying new tests for admission to membership, who demand that applicants state their intentions for the future, and all this; I move that this list of applicants be taken from their hands, that they be discharged from further consideration of the subject, and that it be referred to the Committee of the Whole.”

The president refused to entertain the motion as not in accordance with the by-laws of the society.

Dr. Shank: “Let me inquire of the Chair what by-law he cites?”

Dr. Brodie: “I hope Dr. Shank is not going to occupy the floor all the afternoon.”

Dr. Shank: “I know, Dr. Brodie, that you like to be on the floor most of the time. If the committee fails to make a report, I believe there is a provision which——” (Cries of “read it, read it.”)

Dr. Shank: “I will if I can. Does the Chair refuse to entertain the motion to discharge the Committee on Admissions from the consideration of this question inasmuch as they have acknowledged their inability to make a report.”

Dr. Jerome: “The chairman of the committee made a report that he was not ready to report.”

Dr. Oakley: “I would move that gentlemen present who have made application for membership be allowed to participate in discussion of all purely medical or scientific questions. If they came here for no political purpose this certainly should be satisfactory to them.”

The President: “If any objection is made by a member to a person who is not a member speaking, the person can not be heard. The Chair can not, therefore, entertain the motion.”

Dr. Shank reads: “Should the committee fail to report upon nominations submitted to them, any member having made such nomination may renew the same directly to the society.”

The President: “The Chair understands that the committee has not failed to report, but only ask further time.”

Dr. Shank: “I like to enlighten and give information to my friend Brodie. He is so anxious for information.”

Dr. Pratt: “If law is to be read, let us have all of it.” Reads the balance of the section omitted by Dr. Shank, as follows: “in which case a vote of four-fifths of the members present shall be requisite to constitute an election.”

04032

“Thus when it is established that the committee fails to report, such a motion as that of Dr. Shank would be in order.”

Dr. Brodie: “I thought Brother Shank didn't read the law right.”

The President: “A good deal of time has been spent needlessly, it seems to me. We might better pursue the regular order. I call for the report of the Committee on Publication. Dr. Jerome is the chairman of that committee.” 13

Following the episode the society made a fairly creditable attempt to take up the scientific program.

Dr. Ranney moved that the paper of Dr. Walker on “Plaster-of-Paris as a Surgical Dressing” be read by title and referred to the Committee on Publication. (Dr. Ranney was far from being persona grata to the University contingent.)

Dr. Palmer objected, “Is this a safe precedent, to admit a paper on the title merely and refer it without knowing what it contains? I have no suspicion of anything objectionable in this particular case, but would call attention to the precedent. Some man in the future may sent in a paper attacking the president, or perhaps the society, or the University, or anything else, Detroit College or Dr. Lundy. We know nothing about what it is. I object to this method of doing business, and suggest the propriety of referring the matter to a committee to investigate.”

Dr. Dunster: “The reference does not necessarily imply publication. It is the duty of the committee to use their discretion about publication.”

Dr. Topping: “That is the rule.”

Dr. Ranney: “Dr. Walker asks the indulgence as his paper is not quite completed.”

Dr. Palmer: “That seems more objectionable.”

Dr. Herdman (with exemplary tolerance as being also of the University faculty): “I regret exceedingly that we are not to hear this paper of Dr. Walker's. Looking over the lists this is to me of as much interest as any. We cannot have too many of such. Even if Dr. Walker has not completed the paper I would like to hear his experience on this subject. It is a question at present exciting great comment. I for one would like light upon it. I move to amend so as to ask for the reading of this paper at this or some subsequent time during the meeting.”

Dr. Ranney: “I don't think he has the paper with him.”

The amendment prevailed, and the motion as amended was carried.

After an interval devoted to a committee appointment and the discussion of a paper on “Timely Catharsis” by Dr. Reynolds (“Mental Catharsis” is not considered, being obviously superfluous), Dr. Shank moved that the first thing on the order of business in the morning be the report of the Committee on Admissions, and said, “I do so in order to give new members an opportunity to vote for officers. I wish all to have an opportunity of participating in the election.”

Dr. Smith: “I move as an amendment that the election take place at 04133twelve o'clock tomorrow, after the business which many of us are here to engage in, be dispensed with. I didn't come here to elect officers, but to hear papers. I presume there are many others who are similarly situated, and regret that the time of the society is expended in this purposeless wrangling.”

Dr. Shank: “I will accept that as an amendment to my motion.”

Dr. Smith added that he had no doubt the committee “knew enough to report when they desire to report”; and also said, “it strikes me they will be ready to report in the morning. I wish to move as a substitute simply, that the election be put off until twelve o'clock tomorrow.”

Dr. Shank opposed the substitute.

Dr. Smith: “I don't understand any other reason but that Dr. Shank wants to get these men in here for political purposes;” (was interrupted)—“I think I have the floor. I think Brother Shank a good deal in the condition Dr. Brodie was this afternoon.”

Dr. Shank: “I submit in the first place that the motion of the gentleman cannot, in any common sense, be considered a substitute for my motion. It relates to a different and entirely foreign subject. My motion is that the Committee on Admissions be instructed to report immediately after roll-call tomorrow. I am willing he should append to my motion the words: ‘and that the election take place at twelve o'clock’ My object alone is to give those persons who have come here an opportunity for participating in the business of the society.’

Dr. Smith: “In the election of officers.”

Dr. Smith moved to adjourn.

Which motion was lost.

Dr. Shank: “I renew my motion that the committee be instructed to report immediately after roll-call.”

Dr. Whelan: “I support that motion. That gives me an opportunity to say what I wanted to say. It seems to me a bad spirit, a spirit of antagonism, prevails here. I regard Dr. Shank's motion appropriate. We have a right to call on that committee tomorrow morning. I also endorse the suggestion of Dr. Smith. I hope he will renew his motion to make the election of officers the special order at twelve o'clock. Let us not waste our time. It would promote harmony to ask the report of the committee tomorrow morning.”

Dr. Dunster: “As Dr. Shank has signified his willingness to accept the amendment of Dr. Smith, would it not expedite matters to take but one vote?”

Dr. Palmer: “There is a great variety of questions pending besides the election of officers. I am not anxious about officers, but I am anxious that these persons who have come from a distance to apply for membership, be treated as those who have been made members heretofore.”

“This is appropriate and in accordance with precedent. These persons came here in good faith to participate in the proceedings of the society. I heartily support Dr. Shank's motion.”

Dr. Smith: “Is it a good or profitable thing to bring before the society 04234the Committee on Admissions? I do not understand why we should do so. This committee is composed of good and reputable men; men appointed by the president and accepted by the society. If there is any doubt about the integrity of these men I would like to know the reason.”

Dr. Shank: “Never before since I joined this society did a Committee on Admissions refuse or neglect to report.”

Dr. Smith: “Did they refuse?”

Dr. Shank: “I said neglect or refuse. I desire these applicants be put upon a par with the gentlemen of this society. Not twenty-four, ten, or even five hours elapsed between the time our names were presented and the report of the committee. But since this morning these applications have been kept in the hands of the committee and not a report on a single individual. I say it is unfair.”

Dr. Smith: “There have been insinuations here. Dr. Shank a little while ago either misspoke himself or spoke without thinking, and remarked that he wanted these applicants here the first thing in the morning to vote on the election of officers.”

Dr. Shank maintained it was still a fair proposition.

Dr. Smith: “It is a fair proposition, and I accept it as such. It was the doctor's manner in making it that excited my antagonism.”

Dr. Shank: “I agree. It was as made an unfair proposition.”

Dr. Snook: “Is there a motion before the house? I am not a member but my name is in.”

Dr. Herdman moved to adjourn, but withdrew the motion,

Dr. Bur renewed the motion. †

† Why? One above alone knows. Search me in vain forty-five years later. C. B. B.

It was lost.

Dr. Vaughan” “I move that Dr. Snock, of Kalamazoo, have liberty to address the audience.

Carried.

Dr. Snook: “It may seen presumptuous for me, a young man, to attempt thus to pour oil on the troubled waters. When we invited the society to meet with us here, we expected a quiet, peaceable time. As one gentleman said, there seems to be an element of distrust creeping in. I, was a young man, do not wish to see this old feud creeping in, and have these old battles to fight over again. We desire everything in harmony. I attend the society with the view of improving, not to witness disturbance. Young men look with disgust on this spirit of contention. I have only to ask of you, to beg of you, while partaking of the hospitalities of Kalamazoo, as a society, to do so in peace and harmony.”

On motion adjourned. 13

Refreshed and invigorated after a night's sleep, the troops were ready for the pitched battle which occured following the long delayed report of the Committee on Admissions.

04335

The committee reported adversely on the application of Dr. G. A. Hendricks.

Dr. Palmer: “Is it proper to ask on what grounds? I would like to know. I know Dr. Hendricks as a man of good character.”

Dr. Shank: “I move the acceptance of the report.”

Dr. Brodie read the following letter from Dr. Hendricks, assigning the writing of it as the ground on which the committee's adverse report was based:

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 5-11-1883.

Dear Doctor:

Knowing you to have been a warm supporter of Professor Maclean in former attacks made on him, I feel that I can now safely call upon you to assist in averting a new assault against his character and his position.

Not content with the unfair treatment which he received from the State Medical Society of last year under the leadership of Dr. F. Pratt it is now proposed to take advantage of the infamous libel of the Evening News to still further injure and insult him. The jury has vindicated him, and so have the people who know him most intimately.

The interests of the profession demand that the verdict of the Detroit jury should be endorsed. The Evening News has always abused the profession; therefore the profession should embrace this opportunity to sustain the verdict in favor of one of its members against the News, independently of all personal feelings.

Can you make it convenient to attend the convention to be held May 7th and 8th at Kalamazoo, to assist in crushing certain damaging propositions which a few designing enemies hope to carry? Very sincerely, G. A. Hendricks

Dr.——: “I would like to ask in what way this violates the code of ethics.”

Dr.——: “He is not violating any code, as he is not a member f the society. A person who could do this is not fit to become a member.”

Dr. Boise: “I fail to see any expressions about the society derogatory to its character or to the character of the applicant. He speaks of certain persons, a clique. It is not the society. He does not mention them as the society .”

Dr. Brodie then read an extract from the letter.

Dr. Boise: “I do not understand that expression as meaning that the design of the society is to crush. Read with different accentuation, I think you will find this is for the purpose of assisting in crushing. His attendance is requested for that purpose.”

Dr. Brodie: “Just the contrary.”

Dr. Boise: “A difference of opinion between the gentleman and myself.”

Dr. Maclean: “Mr. President, I feel called upon to say a few words on this subject. I don't feel myself responsible for any private letters which Dr. Hendricks, or any other man may write. He is a man of character, intelligent and in every way qualified to become a member of this society. He is a friend of mine, and I am his friend. He understood, and you all understand, the facts to which reference is made in the letter. I have been unfairly treated by members of this society in time gone by. At the Lansing meeting I read a paper before the society which was listened to with marked attention. 04436It was the only paper excluded from the transactions. It was referred to, and the claim was made that it could not be procured, because I was in Europe.

Dr. Ranney: “I wrote for it to Ann Arbor.”

Dr. Maclean (continuing): “Then, in the next place, last year I proposed to show a little act of courtesy to members of the society. I tendered an invitation to them to attend an operation for ovariotomy. The invitation was given with the kindest spirit and in open meeting. If any single member had said, ‘Your invitation will interfere with the business of the society,’ I should have withdrawn it. More than one-half of the members attended my clinic. Operations for ovariotomy every surgeon takes interest in seeing. Every cas