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.

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.

“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:

“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.”

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?”

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.”

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?”

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.”

“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. †

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.

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 case has its special peculiarities and is of interest. My invitation was appreciated, as shown by the fact that, as I said, fully one-half of the members accepted it. The operation was arranged for an early hour so that it would interfere to but a slight extent with the work of the society. During the absence of myself and those members an entire change of the program was made. The society took up the election of officers. The president at present occupying the chair was elected by twenty-three votes.”

Dr. Tupper: “Is this in order?”

The President: “I think he is taking a pretty large latitude. The question is on the acceptance of the report.”

Dr. Maclean: “I will state my motion now. I move that Dr. Hendricks be received as a member. The letter he was written is true, but has in fact nothing to do with the society as a whole. It refers to matters he has a right to refer to. The letter was not printed or published. It was addressed under seal to the gentleman who received it. Under the circumstances I don't see how he has violated any portion of the code of ethics or good manners or decency. I don't see any excuse for excluding him. Dr. Hendricks was informed (I am prepared to give names) a combination was to be made here for the purpose of introducing some resolutions, or taking some action embarrassing to me. I ask, if you knew of a friend being placed in that position, of a friend you knew or believed you knew was right and deserving of support, if you would not use every means to support him?”

The President: “The motion before the house is to accept the report of the committee.”

Dr. Shank: “I made that motion for the purpose of getting it before the house.”

The President: “The question is upon accepting this report and discharging the committee from the further consideration of the subject.”

Carried.

Dr. Pratt: “I move that the report be adopted.”

Cries of “question, question.”

Dr. Shank: “I think I know my rights. I move that the report be so amended as to recommend his election.”

Dr. Brodie: “You cannot amend a committee's report.”

Dr. Shank: “I cannot, but the house can. I renew Dr. Maclean's motion to amend the report by recommending his election.”

The President: “This would make a committee a farce. I cannot entertain the motion.”

Dr. Shank: “Did you deny the right of this house in the work of the committee? There is no disrespect intended to the Chair, but this body is now in possession of that paper, and we have a right to do with it as we please. I move that the report be amended.”

Dr. Southworth: “I understand from the by-laws, that the report of the Committee on Admissions is final. I don't think this society has anything to do with it whatever. If by that report a person is rejected, that ends it for the present.”

Dr. —— (interrupting): “He says he won't entertain any motion now.”

The President: “One at a time.”

Dr. Southworth: “The question of adoption should come before the house in the regular order. The by-laws give direction to this whole thing.”

Dr. Brodie: “The matter is in the hands of the society. The by-laws provide what the society can do in the matter. It requires a four-fifths vote to elect him.”

Dr. Palmer: “Read the by-law, if your please.”

Dr. Smart: “I rise to a point or order. It seems to me we are getting this mixed. There is a motion to adopt this report made by Dr. Southworth and seconded. There is now pending a motion to adopt.”

Dr. Shank: “On the motion of Dr. Southworth I offered to amend the question. My motion is to amend the report so as to recommend him for election. Now, sir, one word relative to this.” (To Dr. Brodie): “Doctor, sit down, please, you embarrass me.”

Dr. Brodie: “That is my intention.”

Dr. Shank: “I was going to say that this committee has no more to do with this report. They have only to do with it as members of this society. They have made their report; we have accepted it. It is now the property of this society. This society owns it. We can do with it what we please.”

Dr. Southworth: “For that reason I move that it be adopted.”

Dr. Shank: “But while a question is pending a motion to amend it is in order. Now let's take the sense of this society as to whether we like this report.”

Dr. Palmer: “I rise to a question of order. I wish to read the section of the by-law Dr. Brodie read so that it can be understood by the meeting.” (Reads section 2 of article 3 of the by-laws.) “That is the law. Nothing is said about where the committee report unfavorably. This is where they fail to report. Then a four-fifths vote is required. That is when they report unfavorably.”

Dr. Alvord: “We have no precedents for the last eighteen years for just 04638such a case as this. I hope Dr. Shank's amendment will be recognized by the Chair.”

Dr. Pratt: “This is our constitution and by-laws. It strikes me it would be well to look a little carefully at what we are doing. The constitution of the society provides—”

Dr. Shank (interrupting): “Where are you reading, Doctor?”

Dr. Pratt: “From page 273.”

Reads Section 2, Article 3, of the by-laws. During the reading the doctor was interrupted. He stopped and remarked:

“I will make my point clear before I get through.”

When the committee fails to report, the by-laws require a four-fifths vote to elect. I have been somewhat familiar with the proceedings of this society for many years. There has never been a single instance where a man reported on unfavorably has been elected. You cannot cite me to a single instance in the history of this society.”

A voice: “Nor anywhere else.”

Dr. Pratt: “If a committee fails to report on a candidate, and it requires a four-fifths vote to elect him, it is manifest to any intelligent gentleman that it should require a unanimous vote, if they report against him. I have stated my position in a few words. In regard to Dr. Shank's amendment for amending the committee's report: If a committee of a legislative body make a report that body may amend the bill or resolution, but they cannot amend the report. When a committee unanimously, or by a majority, say they hold certain views on a certain question, it is not competent for a body for whom they act to change that report so as to change the opinion of the committee. This body would stultify itself in undertaking to amend the report. This committee has made a report, giving its reasons for rejecting a candidate. This society cannot change that report. That report is the work of the committee and the expression of its opinion. This society cannot put either opinions, facts, or statements into the mouth of the committee.”

Dr. Dunster: “The gentleman who has preceded me is quite correct in the parliamentary aspect of this matter. The gentleman [Dr. Shank] should have made his motion not to amend the report but to amend the motion of Dr. Southworth. The report has been disposed of. Now this gentleman's [Dr. Southworth's] motion can be amended if the house chooses to do so.”

Dr. Chase: “I rise to call attention to a point. In the report of the committee there are two points involved. For the sake of voting intelligently it is allowable to divide. We can vote on its acceptance——

A voice: “That has been voted on.”

Dr. Chase: “Another point I wish to make mention of: Dr. Pratt while on the floor said that the vote should be unanimous.”

Dr. Pratt: “I asked the question; I didn't make any statement.”

Dr. Chase: “The point I make is this: that two members of this society have recommended the applicant for membership. Are they going to stultify themselves?”

Dr. Pratt: “Dr. Chase, I don't think you understand the question.”

Dr. Chase: “I understand your point.”

Dr. Pratt: “But the situation of this case before the house?”

Dr. Chase: “I ask that the report be divided into two portions.”

The President: “The question is on the adoption of the report.”

Dr. Chase: “I say I have a right to present this question, and ask them to divide that into two question so that we may vote upon those who have been favorably reported on and then on the others.”

The President: “I don't see that Dr. Chase had made any point.”

Dr. Shank: “If we vote to adopt this report in what condition does it leave this candidate?”

A voice: “Just where it is now.”

Dr. Shank: “A rejected candidate. Is this not true? As to my friend Pratt's parliamentary law, it is simply this: He says we can't amend.”

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

Dr. Shank: “The question is this: I made a motion to amend the committee's report so as to recommend that he be elected.”

The President: “I cannot entertain the motion.”

Dr. McColl: “I rise to a point of order. I think this whole discussion is out of order. We have a judicial council, to whom such matters should be referred.”

Dr. Shank: “But he is not a member of this society.”

On suggestion of Dr. McColl, the president referred the whole matter to the Judicial Council without further action.

Dr. Noyes: “I would like to ask the president if those gentlemen reported on favorably are elected?”

Dr. Pratt: “No doubt about it.”

The President: “They were so declared.”

Dr. Palmer: “I rise for information. Is the recommendation of the committee final and absolute? If the Judicial Council decides against a member is that final?”

The President: “Yes, that is final.”

Dr. Palmer: “Then this matter is in the hands of a few members.”

Dr. Pratt: “This is the same practice that prevails in the American Medical Association.”

Dr. Palmer: “I hope we shall be very careful about the election of the Judicial Council this year.”

A voice: “We better elect Dr. Palmer.”

The president announced that the next in the regular order of business would be the election of officers. He appointed as tellers Drs. Tupper and Kinne.

Dr. Southworth asked for the reading of that section of the by-laws in reference to the election of officers, and said he hoped there would be no more quibbling.

The report of the Committee on Nominations was then read by Dr. Tyler, chairman, as follows:

First Vice President—Dr. Horace Tupper, Bay City.

Delegates to American Medical Association—Drs. Hal. C. Wyman; J. B.Book; William Brodie; L. Connor; C. J. Lundy, in place of J. H. Bennett, declined; Eugene Smith, in place of E. L. Shurly, decline; W. J. Herdman, in place of E. S. Dunster, declined; A. B. Palmer; D. Maclean, in place of William F. Breakey, declined; Foster Pratt; A. R. Smart; J. Andrews; S. S. French; C. H. Lewis; F. K. Owen; Jas. D. Munson; Hugh McColl; A. F. Hagadorn; H. Williams, in place of J. H. Jerome, declined; L. W. Bliss; W. N. Smart; Geo. E. Ranney; Chas. T. Southworth; I. R. Shepard; C. V. Beebe; S. P. Duffield, in place of W. E. Dockery, declined; W. L. Dickinson; G. K. Johnson.

Dr. Vaughan: “I have a substitute for the nominations which have been made. I want to know whether the substitution is to come in now.”

The president explained that the first question should be the acceptance and adoption of the committee's report.

Dr. Vaughan moved to accept merely.

Dr. Noyes: “Is the number of delegates mentioned as many as this society can elect.”

Dr. Pratt: “The full number.”

Dr. Noyes: “I want to go to that Association and I intend to go.”

The President: “I don't know that I can do anything about that.”

The report of the committee was accepted.

The following substitute for the committee report was offered by Dr. Vaughan.

Delegates to the American Medical Association—Drs. C. Shepard, J. T. Main, J. W. Hagadorn, J. F. Snow, E. S. Dunster, J. V. Edie, J. F. Noyes, C. Georg, A. D. Hagadorn, E. P. Christian, N. H. Williams, R. J. Shank, Edward Snow, Gordon Chittock, H. C. Paddock, R. LeBaron, D. Maclean, C. J. Lundy, William Burtless, J. B. Griswold, A. F. Whelan, A. H. Reed, E. H. Van Deusen, W. L. Dickinson, E. L. Shurly, William Brodie, S. H. 04941Clizbee, M. H. Raymond, D. W. C. Wade, J. N. Elliot, H. F. Ewers, S. P. Duffield.

Dr. Brodie: “He has called names not members of this society.”

Dr. Duffield: “I would like to ask Dr. Vaughan to leave my name off.”

Dr. Lundy: “I believe I am nominated as one of the delegates to the American Medical Association on this substitute. While I would be glad to go as a delegate to the Association, and have so expressed myself, because I am not a member of that body, I would not be willing to go as a delegate if elected under the present circumstances. I am not a party to either side of this controversy and cannot accept an election in this way, while I would have been pleased to if nominated in the regular order.”

Dr. Kimball: “I move the adoption of the substitute.”

Dr. Whelan: “I rise to withdraw my name. I am already a delegate from the Michigan Southern Medical Society.”

Dr. Webber: “My competitor is a warm personal friend. I cannot permit my name to be used on this substitute against his.”

Dr. Noyes: “I wish to withdraw my name as one of those nominated as delegate to the American Medical Association.”

At this point it was moved that several names be substituted in Dr. Vaughan's report.

Dr. Pratt: “I rise to a point of order. Dr. Vaughan introduces a substitute for the report of the committee, and very properly characterizes it as his motion. It has been alluded to by others as a report, which will soon be corrected by this body. When Dr. Vaughan has fixed his motion (we do not known him as a committee of this body) we may be prepared to vote.”

Dr. Vaughan: “What objection is there to names being withdrawn and others substituted?”

Dr. Pratt: “Until you have fixed your motion satisfactorily we do not propose to engage in motions to substitute. I was not aware that you were a committee of this body.”

Dr. Vaughan: “I didn't speak of this as a report.”

Dr. Hitchcock: “I would like some information. I didn't come in as early as I would have been happy to. I would like to know what the true inwardness of this is. I don't know exactly. If anybody will tell me I will be prepared to vote.”

Dr. Jerome: “Dr. Vaughan can tell you.”

The motion to adopt the report of the committee was carried.

Dr. Herdman: “As no opportunity has been afforded newly elected members to complete their membership, and as they are not allowed by the law of our society to participate in discussions or vote on officers—”

Dr. Tyler: “The gentleman is out of order. It is now in order to proceed to the election of officers.”

The President: “That is the decision of the Chair.”

The secretary announced that the most of those elected had already completed their membership.

Dr. Hemenway: “As one of the applicants for admission, who has been voted on for membership, I beg leave to withdraw my name. I offered my name under the impression that this was a body formed for the purpose of scientific——”

Cries of “order, order!”

Dr. Southworth moved that the society proceed to an informal ballot for president.

The motion prevailed.

On motion of Dr. Tupper, the secretary was instructed to call the roll that members might come forward and deposit their ballots.

Dr. Smart: “I rise to present the claims of the southern part of this state upon this society. We do not come to beg of you. We are not in the attitude of claimants; but we have a territory in the southern part of the state which contains a number of medical men members of this society. We have an active working organization. For eighteen years in this society we have not had a representative in the chair. We think it due us that we should have. We think we have valid and cogent reasons for offering you a nominee for position. We do not wish to offer you any one for the sake of giving him merely a personal support. We do not think it proper, or within the province of this society, to select a president for such reasons. We think it proper to select some man who is entirely independent of any of the various conflicting influences, whose action has been so apparent in this body, independent of any institutions; to select a man who shall purely represent the profession of this state, and outside the interest of any institution or body. I take pleasure in tendering to you the name of a worthy, long established practitioner of the locality to which I have referred, a man for thirty years past in the front rank of the profession, and who has never trailed its banners in the dust, a member of this society almost from its inception, a man experienced in presiding, and one who will do honor to the position, whose election would be a fitting act of justice on your part. I present to you the name of Dr. A. F. Whelan, of Hillsdale.”

Dr. French: “I have long known the gentleman spoken of by Dr. Smart. I have been with him in the field. I heartily endorse his nomination.”

Dr. Hitchcock: “Perhaps some members of this society will remember that three years ago I advocated the candidacy of this gentleman; I advocated it one year age, and we felt that it ought to have come to fruitage them . My advocacy of his candidacy is perennial. Not annual, but perennial, because friendship is enduring and professional confidence is enduring. I second his nomination, sir, not because he is a friend or a nominee of the University; not because he is a friend or a nominee of the Detroit Medical College; not because he is a friend or the nominee of the Michigan College of Medicine, but because he is a member of the profession of medicine, the working, active profession of medicine; because he has always honored that profession and stood up boldly and nobly. Some trees do not bear fruit until they are three 05143years old. I believe this will be so with this man's candidacy. Three years and it will come to a fruitage.”

Dr. Maclean: “I rise to move that Dr. Whelan's nomination be made unanimous. I move that this be done by acclamation.”

A voice: “You can't do it.”

Dr. Jerome: “The secretary can deposit the ballot for the society.”

Dr. Maclean: “I want to say one word; it is this: I have advocated Dr. Whelan's claims as strongly as any member in years past. I felt pained that owing to my mistaken courtesy Dr. Whelan was defeated last year. It would be uncandid, unfair, and entirely out of character for me to stand up here and say I knew nothing of any other movement. I have enthusiastic friends, I might say admirers, who have proposed to oppose me to Dr. Whelan, and for reason I do not care to go into. I still feel that the action of this society in the matter of electing a president is not essential. I admit Dr. Whelan has higher claims than I. He is an older man; an older member. I would not have been a candidate now, perhaps not for years to come, had I not been influenced by certain considerations. I move that the secretary be authorized to cast the ballot of the society for Dr. Whelan.”

The ballot was deposited by the secretary.

Dr. Tupper: “The result of this election seems to be unanimous for Dr. A. F. Whelan.”

The President: “Dr. A. F. Whelan, of Hillsdale, is unanimously elected president of the society for the ensuing year.”

Dr. Tyler announced that in selecting the names of delegates the Committee on Nominations had, so far as practicable, inquired of members if they would like to attend the meeting of the American Medical Association. In making the nominations the committee had been largely governed by the replies received. He regretted that the names of any members who would like to go had been omitted.

Dr. Pratt: “The delegation has been divided as far as possible geographically. If there has been any favor shown any locality, it has been Detroit. Detroit one-twelfth the population of Michigan. It has one-sixth of the representation.”

Dr. Tupper: “If in order, I move that this question be referred to the president and secretary, and that they have power to fill any vacancies on the delegation.”

The motion prevailed. 13

Dr. Post (a partner of Dr. Ranney) asked permission to read his paper on “Water and Its Relation to Health and Disease” by title, as it was somewhat lengthy.

Dr. Palmer: “I don't think this is the best way to proceed. We can listen to a certain portion of the paper if the doctor cannot read the whole. I do not think this is a good precedent.”

The lengthy report on the president's address evoked the following lengthier and spicier discussion:

Dr. Palmer: “I feel called upon as a member of the faculty of the University of Michigan to make some remarks, explanations and replies, I hope in an entirely impersonal manner and kindly spirit, to the severe attack, as I regarded it, and I believe the society generally regarded it, which was made by the president upon the University in his annual address. (When speaking of the University, I refer, of course, to the medical department.)

“It is hardly possible to enter upon this discussion without calling to mind the whole character of the paper as far as it referred to the University. All that preceded the remarks on the University by the president met my hearty approval. I was pleased with that he said about the recognition of medicine as a science. The president commenced on the subject of the University by stating (according to some notes I made at the time) that there was a want of harmony between the state society and the medical department. That there is such a want of harmony between certain individuals of this society and of the medical department must be admitted by all those who have observed the proceedings of the society for some years past; and this want of harmony was certainly demonstrated by the president's address. The medical professors (I, certainly), had an intimation of this attack a week or more ago. It came through a person residing at Lansing. Word came to us that there was to be an attack made in this society upon the medical department of the University—upon its very existence. Whether it was to come in the form of a resolution, or in some other way, we were not informed, and I wish to say that my own presence here, leaving my duties at the University, leaving my clinic and lectures, was in part in consequence of the expectation that such an attack would be made. Let me say further that not only am I here on that account, but that a number of the alumni of the University are here for the same reason. We are not here altogether with reference to any individual, but with reference to the interests of the institution we have been so long laboring to build up and establish. We have learned the mode of attack in the president's address, and we learned further the sentiment of some members in the strenuous effort which was made to have the address sent to the Committee on Publication without discussion.

“Now, medicine, by the organic law of Michigan, and of the University is recognized as a science, and provisions is made for its teaching. The president in his address very properly alluded to medicine as a science and an art. And I repeat, it is so recognized in the organic law of Michigan, and it will require a change in the organic law to have it otherwise. The president recognized the permanent establishment of the medical department, but attacked this policy, arguing against it necessity and propriety. He said there were physicians enough and more than enough in the country without such aid in preparing and educating them. Arguing against its propriety, the address descended to particulars. I wish to say again that I hope my remarks will be regarded as impersonal. Men are of little consequence comparatively; 05345they come and go. Institutions are of much more consequence, and principles are eternal. The fact of the existence of the medical department is clear. It was recognized as a fixed fact by the president, who seemed to think it must continue. He had no hope, apparently, of extinguishing it. He only proposed remedies for mitigating the evil, and the first suggestion he made was to have the University adopt means for securing a higher standard of study and attainments in the profession generally. Of course I shall not take issue with the president in regard to that proposition.

“Now what have we done in securing or endeavoring to secure higher standards in the profession? When the medical department was organized, I think almost every medical school in this country had terms of four months or sixteen weeks of lectures. Two such were required for a course. The University required six months in a term, and two terms for a course. The University has gone on since that time slowly increasingly the amount of instruction, and the number of subjects upon which instruction is given. Extensive laboratories have been arranged for practical work. Within the last few years we have required an attendance on these courses of instruction of nine months each. We require an amount of laboratory work which I believe is unequaled by any medical institution in this country. We teach more practical chemistry, more practical anatomy, more practical histology, more pathological anatomy, more practical work day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. I don't except even Harvard in the amount of work required of every student. During the last year particularly we have had courses of instruction in practical physiology not inferior to any course given elsewhere, so far as I know. Those terms of nine months, a thorough examination, calling in here the aid of the profession outside of the faculty, indicate our effort to do thorough work. We quite agree that it is the duty of the medical department constantly to raise its requirements and furnish a more complete and higher grade of instruction for students.

“Second. —The address stated the possibility and desirableness of combined action between the regents and the state society in securing legislation respecting the higher qualifications of physicians. This would be glad to have done, and also to secure proper laws to protect the people against quackery. There is no issue here.

“Third. —We should stop the injustice of giving gratuitous treatment to patients. A particular proposition of that kind was made in the address. It was opposed to treating gratuitously paupers from county houses in the hospital and clinics, as disparaging poorhouse physicians. The president said those who were able to pay were treated gratuitously, and we were thus robbing the profession of their proper income. Now if cannot have the poor to treat in hospitals, and cannot have persons who are able to pay, I would like to know how we are to have a hospital. How can any hospital exist if the president's objection are sound and his plan carried out? The proposition is equivalent to abolishing absolutely and completely all hospital and clinical instruction.”

The President: “I wish to correct. I simply wish to say that with reference to the poor there was nothing said about them; the only reference to the poor being made in quoting from the address of Bishop Gillespie. It is looked upon as an advertisement.”

Dr. Palmer: “Does the president say that he didn't make any statement in his address, that by taking the poor from poorhouses to treat, the poor-house physicians were disparaged?”

The President: “The assumption made by Bishop Gillespie was disparaging to them. But in the recommendations the substance was that they treated those abundantly able to pay their bills.”

Dr. Palmer: “A point once raised against us by the profession, and very justly, was that we had no clinical advantages. At first we had no hospital. Now we have, and clinical advantages. We have a very rich clinic, embracing chronic diseases of every character. We have made that clinic what it is at a cost of much effort. There is a certain number from among the abject poor picked up in the streets. In the State of Michigan, fortunately, we are not abundantly supplied with this class. We cannot have patients come to us from a distance, or from any place, without comparisons being made in respect to treatment, but the idea of disparaging physicians by taking patients who come to us is absurd. I do not feel I am disparaged by Dr. Connor [who was present] professing to make a specialty of diseases of the eye, and I am not disparaged by sending to him or others such cases. I do not think a county physician, who takes the business of the country-house because he is the lowest bidder, is disparaged by sending a case of cataract, for instance, to the University, to be operated upon by one who gives special attention to that operation. It is impossible, certainly, to have a clinic unless we can have the poor. Patients come to us; we receive and do the best we can for them, come from whatever source they may. We cannot always know their pecuniary ability. The objections of the address, if sustained, would close every hospital and abolish every clinic in the land.

” Fourth. —The next proposition is that the faculty should stop the ‘greater injustice’ of treating at Ann Arbor non-resident patients without giving the fees to the University. Well, now, a mann who is capable of giving proper instruction, and is called to a position in the University, is supposed to have respectable professional ability. The idea that a salary of $2,000 or $2,200 should deprive him of the privilege of doing any business of a private character, I leave you to judge of. It seems absurd to us. The Regents of the University employ me and other men to do certain work. If we do what work we have to do, and do it well, our time is our own that is not necessary to the performance of that duty. The idea seemed to me very absurd that we should pay over the money obtained from private practice to the Board of Regents.

” Fifth. —The president proposed to stop what he called the unwarranted and extensive advertising of the college and hospital. At this point severe strictures were made upon Bishop Gillespie. I know Bishop Gillespie. He was 05547my pastor for many years. I know what his labors have been in the State of Michigan as chairman of the Board of Charities. I know he was visited nearly or quite every poorhouse in this state, and examined into the condition of the inmates, the insane, the blind, the sick and the maimed. He understands this subject thoroughly. He is a man who has a heart large enough to embrace not only his diocese and his church, but God's poor of the state. He feels an interest in them and tries to relieve them of their sufferings. He has lived at Ann Arbor. When with us, nearly every Sunday he visited the jail and the poorhouse. He held services at these places, encouraged and comforted the inmates. He knew that we were trying to do at the University hospital. He had not the gift of miraculous healing like his Master, but was obliged to resort to human instrumentality to relieve suffering, and he referred to the instrumentality he thought most efficient in accomplishing his object. To have such a man arraigned in an address in this way, as improperly advertising a state institution, seems to me extremely out of place. But, however wrong, in his desire to relieve suffering, it may have for him to have made the remarks he did, we certainly are not responsible for them. We knew nothing of them until they were uttered and published. The bishop is alone responsible for what he said, and he can well afford to bear that responsibility. Bishop Gillespie is above such criticism. He not only deserves, but he receives the gratitude of the people of Michigan for his benevolent efforts for the afflicted poor of the state.

“The University is accused of advertising! Whenever we, of this society, publish our transactions, we are advertising ourselves, necessarily. Every physician who treats a patient, through that patient advertises himself. There has been no improper advertising on the part of the University. No one can put his finger upon an instance of unjustifiable, laudatory, or improper advertising. The strictures were entirely uncalled for and unwarranted. Are we to retire into our shells and suppress the fact of the existence of the hospital or school? Can we build up and maintain a school or fulfill our duties as professors—duties imposed upon us by the law of the University—by saying and doing nothing to build up the hospital or sustain the school? Are we, indeed, under obligations to prevent others from doing so? Can any institution be built up in this way?

” Sixth. —The address stated that we should consult the State Medical Society or profession of the state in the appointment of professors.”

The President: “It was suggested whether it might not be practicable in the interests of harmony. I did not arraign Bishop Gillespie, except to quote his own language.”

Dr. Palmer: “Well, how is that done? How are professors selected? The faculty do not select them. They have nothing to do but answer questions and give advice when asked. The professors are selected by the Board of Regents, who in turn are elected by the people for that purpose. They do as they please; we have no power in the matter. They have put professors in the University who have wounded our feelings certainly as much as those 05648of anybody else. It is impossible for the regents to go to the state society, or the profession at large, when a professor is to be selected. These are the principal charges made in the address. What does the whole amount to, or what is proposed as the remedy for the alleged evil? Just this: Suppressing the fact of our having a medical college, the abolition of hospital and clinic; the complete suppression of the medical college, shutting it up and extinguishing it; to induce the state and the University to withdraw their recognition of medicine as a science; to destroy the efforts being made to elevate the standard of medical teaching; to send students to short term private schools without proper laboratories or adequate means of instruction, and to send poorly educated physicians into the world! To have these views go into the transactions as a matter of medical policy seems to me to be a very great injustice, and to be opposed to the sentiments of the majority of the members of the society. The effort made to avoid any discussion of the address seemed to be not a fair thing.”

Dr. Pratt: “Was there such an effort made?”

Dr. Jerome: “None here.”

Dr. Palmer: “I repeat I have made these remarks in no bad spirit of fault-finding with the president's address. Personalities where principles and institutions are concerned are out of place. I shall not indulge in them. The matter is of little consequence whether a particular man is president of this society for a year, or whether he is ever president, but it is a matter of consequence that the University should not be disparaged by such unfounded charges emanating upon it from this body.”

Dr. Maclean: “As a member of the faculty of the University, I feel called upon to say a word or two on this subject. In general terms I heartily endorse every single word Dr. Palmer has uttered. I have never heard him make a speech containing more true eloquence, or more to the point than this. If the members of this society will come to Ann Arbor and go with us to the hospital and laboratories and see for themselves the work we are doing, the effort we are making to elevate the standard of medical education, I think they will have a very different view of this whole subject, and come away with very different impressions. They must admit that we are strenuously, energetically, and honestly trying to do our duty to students, state, and profession. Charges are made that we interfere with the private practice of general practitioners of the state by our free clinic. I have as many patients at my clinic as any other member of the faculty. Not one in forty but comes there with a letter from his doctor at home. In a majority of cases the doctor comes and remains with the patient until the operation is over. That is the general fact. I challenge any member to place his finger on one fact or bring one instance (speaking for myself), where a patient sent to us by a doctor in the country has gone back discontented with his doctor at home. Show me one case where a doctor has been otherwise than bolstered up (not to say that the doctor often requires bolstering up). Patients, as you know, are prone to go about from one doctor to another. 05749With earnestness I say that the policy of the medical faculty is universally to aid and assist professional brethren. It frequently happens that poorhouse surgeons have cases that they haven't the time or appliances to treat. Is it not a convenience for them to have a place to send them? In almost every instance they come with letters from the doctor. The only doctors 1 have ever heard complain of the University robbing them, have been poor young fellows who hadn't got to that stage where they were pressed with work. It takes time and age to establish a reputation. Such men as I speak of are the only ones that feel themselves injured. It seems to me that it is a sad spectacle—the State Medical Society turning its energies to pulling down a great medical institution. It would seem as if we had struggles enough in getting on without being attacked by our friends. There are plenty of subjects on which we can combine with great force and advantage—subjects injured by the want of harmony, concentration, and attention on the part of the medical profession. If we could, for instance, combine our forces with a view to obtaining that legislation which is so much required by the people of this state. Unfortunately the great difficulty lies in a want of harmony, and year after year we have met with disappointment. I trust my venerable colleague, Dr. Palmer, will live to see the time when the medical profession will make a grand effort to elevate the profession of medicine in this state. The interests of the profession will never be elevated by attacking the conduct of a man like Bishop Gillespie. We have treated wealthy patients at the University. We do so at times without knowing it. We do all in our power to prevent those who are able to pay being treated gratuitously. The resident physician has instruction to discourage such patients. They sometimes take advantage of us. I don't see how we can help this. We pick up all classes of invalids during term time, and treat them without fee or hope of reward. The motto of the hospital has been the same as that above the entrance to the Old Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, ‘I was sick and ye visited me.’”

Dr. Hitchcock: “I would like to ask what the condition of this business is. Has the report of the committee been acted upon, or is it before the house for adoption?”

The president explained.

Dr. Hitchcock: “With regard to this whole subject, I don't wish to say much. Sometimes perhaps there have been instances in which patients have gone to the University. Why, I cannot answer. One case I remember of my own where I had proposed to operate, had fixed the fee, etc. Some friends of the patient pressed him to go down to the University. He had a right to go. They had a right to see him. He was operated upon at the University and I heard later that it cost him three hundred dollars, whereas I proposed to operate for one hundred and fifty dollars. I was very glad that it cost him all it did, too. It is competition after all. Now I don't believe he was put into the hospital and made a charge on the state, the doctor taking the fee. The doctor, once in a while, gets called out 05850where he treads on my toes; but this is fair competition. If he can do the operation, charge about twice as much as I do and persuade them to pay him, I don't see why he should not have the privilege. I am going to keep away from him all I am able. I don't see what good it is going to do us to talk this matter over here. I don't think these gentlemen mean to be mean. What is the use of bringing these University questions into the society every year? We had better go to something higher. I think that the science of medicine is above the University. The society had betted stop talking about the University and develop something in the broad fields of medical science far beyond the University. Let them overtake us if they can.”

“Now, Mr. President, I move to lay the report of this committee on the table. It will carry the whole subject with it. I want it to say on the table.”

Dr. Maclean: “In regard——”

Dr. Brodie: “I call the doctor to order.”

Dr. Maclean: “In regard to the patient who came to me I am reminded of a little story. There were nineteen reasons why a man didn't come to dinner. One was because he was dead.”

Dr. Hitchcock: “That patient wad not dead, doctor.”

Dr. Maclean: “No such case as that ever occurred.”

Dr. Hitchcock: “I don't suppose that this motion prevents the president's address from being published in our transactions?”

Dr. Brodie: “That's the object.”

Dr. Hitchcock: “That is not the object of it, Dr. Brodie, I certainly wish the president's address published.”

Dr. Pratt: “Yesterday, after the reading of the president's address, the usual motion was made and carried, and its reference to the Committee on Publication was made. The impression seemed to prevail among some that that action was to prevent any discussion of it. Accordingly we moved a reconsideration of the motion by which it was referred to the committee. The motion was reconsidered and the president's address is still before this society, just as though no action had been taken upon it. Now, then, a motion by lay that report upon the table carries the whole subject matter with it, president's address and all. I move as an amendment to the last motion that the president's address be referred to the Committee on Publication. If they wish, the report of the committee may lie upon the table.”

Dr. Brodie: “I am in hopes Dr. Hitchcock will withdraw that motion. I think it one of the strangest things that ever occurred in the history of this society.”

Dr. H. F. Thomas: This is the first time I ever knew Dr. Hitchcock to be unfair. Three speeches in opposition to the report an then a motion to lay on the table! I can see no objection to the report of the committee. They 05951only state that they see no reason why certain subjects could not be discussed. They have been and are being discussed.”

Dr. Griswold. “That portion of the president's address only is before us that was reported by the committee.”

The President: “I do not care to discuss the question, but would like an opportunity to make an explanation. I said what I had a right to say as a citizen of the State of Michigan, and as a member and officer of this society. I have nothing to take back, no apologies to make, and I don't permit anybody to fix up my address. It is in my possession and I can take it home.”

Dr. Herdman: “I don't think Dr. Hitchcock, or any member of the medical faculty, has any desire to cut off discussion. I am exceedingly desirous of hearing all that can be said. Dr. Palmer has most admirably met their objection——”

Called to order.

Dr. Hitchcock: “I will beg leave to withdraw the motion for the time being.”

The Vice President: “The question is on the acceptance and adoption of the report of the committee.”

Dr. Brodie: “I understand Dr. Hitchcock has withdrawn his motion temporarily, so as to allow discussion. It would seem that the medical department of the University is a sacred thing, and no one has a right to express an opinion outside of its faculty. As a citizen of the state, I claim the right to express my individual opinion. There is no such thing as ownership because a person may happen to be a teacher, a warden, or a superintendent in our state institutions. They are simply performing certain duties for the state. The president has but expressed his opinion how certain things have been done to which he objects. The impression has gone abroad, and arose in the city of Detroit, that the hospital at Ann Arbor is used for private purposes.”

Dr. Herdman: “It is not.”

Dr. Brodie: “That people of wealth and people outside the state can go to that hospital and pay their fees for being operated upon.”

Dr. Palmer: “That is not true. Whoever reports that is mistaken or tells a falsehood. I never charged a patient one penny for anything done in the hospital, and I don't believe other members of the faculty have done so.”

(Applause.)

Dr. Brodie: “It has not been customary in this society that a gentleman having the floor should be clapped out. I am telling you what the opinion is in this state. It is not confined to Kalamazoo or Washtenaw Counties. It is that people go to that hospital and pay their fees for being operated upon. It don't [ sic ] make any difference to me personally, but 06052that is the impression. I mean to say that as an individual member of this society and a tax-payer of this state I have a right to express my opinion. This is a free country. They have no right to attack me for speaking my sentiments, nor have they a right to condemn the president for expressing his opinion. This is the first time in the history of this society that any act of the kind has been done. I am charged with ‘choking down.’ The president's address was referred, as has been customary for eighteen years. I was charged with making this motion for the purpose of cutting off debate. It has not been customary to debate the president's address. There was no intention to interfere with any debate. This motion to lay on the table carries with it the president's address.”

Dr. DeCamp: “I think Dr. Brodie mistaken. I remember I had the fortune to be president of this society once myself. Because I said some things about blood-letting, a committee was appointed to consider some of the points in the address. The address was accepted, published, and the committee reported on the subject matter of the address. The committee was appointed to report to the society the next year.”

Dr. Brodie: “I think you asked yourself that a committee be appointed.”

Dr. DeCamp: “I see no reason why we should not adopt that plan, then take up this matter referred to the committee as an independent affair.”

Dr. Pratt: “I move as a substitute that the president's address be referred to the Committee on Publication for publication; that the report of the committee be referred to the same committee for publication; that the discussion and remarks be also referred to the committee on Publication for publication.”

Dr. Boise: “I request the president for the sake of harmony in this society to withdraw that portion of his address. I move this as an amendment.”

Dr. Ward: “I think the society is abundantly competent to vote now. For the purpose of shutting off further debate, I move the previous question.”

The motion prevailed.

The amendment of Dr. Boise was lost.

Dr. Pratt's substitute prevailed.

Dr. Herdman moved that Dr. Palmer be permitted to prepare his remarks for publication.

Dr. Jerome said the same privilege should be extended to others.

Dr. Pratt: “I am not afraid of discussion, sir, nor am I disposed to squelch any man's individual expression of opinion. When it was charged yesterday that there was a disposition to ‘choke off’ debate it was not true. I propose now to move an amendment to Dr. Herdman's motion. It is that the secretary be requested to furnish a report of the remarks made by the gentleman on this question to each gentleman making remarks, for his correction; 06153so it may appear in the journal as nearly as uttered here as possible.”

Anyone who knew Dr. Brodie will enjoy and fully credit his remark offered in connection with a resolution of thanks for the entertainment and hospitality extended the society.

“This meeting, though perhaps not pregnant with as much science as former meetings, has been nevertheless profitable. We see too much science. We get to be tired and sick of it. We have a double object in view in these little meetings. They are not purely scientific nor purely social. I like to come here and meet my old friends and have a little spar with them, too. It don't hurt my feelings a bit. I have enjoyed this meeting very much, indeed.”

And in the opinion of the History Committee member who has prepared this article it would have been a distinct loss to the present generation of physicians had it been omitted or indeed materially abbreviated. It is to the writer a rare and, at this distance in time, delightful human document. Furthermore the discussion (disputation?) deals with questions of practical present-day interest—those which in the lapse of years have not yet been fully ironed out. The intriguing and amusing matter is that of approach and the revelation of the psychology of the participants. One can scarcely conceive of any such episode as occurring at the meeting of the State Medical Society during the current year. It marked a period of professional evolution and the actors on the medical stage were a product of their time. They were hewing a way and the present generation reaps the benefit of their apparent ruthlessness and aggressiveness. They met difficulties in the pioneer spirit to which the state in every department of effort owes its magnificent development. The structure of tolerance and compromise was to come later. At that time they were breaking stone for the foundation.

And let it not be forgotten or overlooked, “there were giants in those days.”

The action of the State Medical Society of New York in incorporating in 1882 in its code of ethics an article antagonistic to that of the American Medical Association, gave Dr. Connor and other conservatives no end of trouble. It was:

“Members of the Medical Society of the State of New York and of the medical societies in affiliation therewith, may meet in consultation legally qualified practitioners. Emergencies may occur in which all restrictions should, in the judgment of the practitioner, yield to the demands of humanity.”

Dr. Connor's editorial 2 apropos this action would cause a flood of tears from a ground mole. There were “barriers broken down” and a' that; but the painful episode need not further be discussed, pertaining as it does to universal and not, strictly speaking, Michigan history. Suffice the remark 06254than in the fullness of time all seams were caulked and the medical ship made seaworthy. However, before the limbo of forgotten things becomes effective in jurisdiction, it seems pertinent to add that—

“The action of the New York Medical Society seems to have impressed them (the homeopaths) that their day of triumph is near at hand. Is this a time to cry ‘peace, peace’? Has the regular profession no principles that it is ready to fight for?” 2

There was no question as the sympathies of a majority of the membership of the State Medical Society in 1884 when Dr. Maclean was elected president by a majority of sixty-three over the venerable and worthy Dr. French of Battle Creek. In presenting the latter's name, Dr. Smart of Hudson said:

“Mr. President and Gentlemen: Those present at the meeting of this society at Kalamazoo last year will remember that I presented as a candidate for the presidency of the society one of its oldest and most distinguished members. This choice you saw fit to accept the ratify. I now take pleasure in presenting for your suffrages the name of another of the older and honored members of this body, a gentleman whose locks have been silvered in the service of the profession; one who has been always a faithful attendant at the meetings of the society and has labored unceasingly for its interests; a man who stands well at home, where honors have been heaped upon him; twice he has been called to the highest office in the gift of the city where he resides. To such men who have grown gray and bowed with years of honorable service in the profession and in the interest of this society, belong its honors and emoluments. In placing such a man in the chair of the presiding officer we shall do honor to ourselves and a grateful act of justice to the recipient; it is with pleasure I present to you the name of S. S. French of Battle Creek.”

Dr. Maclean was nominated and the nomination supported by Dr. C. T. Newkirk in the following words:

“Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: In behalf and by request of a large number of the younger members of the profession, I rise to support the nomination of Dr. Donald Maclean. In a recent great convention held in this country the young men sought and obtained recognition; in fact it seems to be the young men's year. I trust it will not be varied in the election of the president of the State Medical Society. I am of the opinion that the president of this society should be one who has done something for science. It is urged that Dr. Maclean's opponent was a surgeon in the army during the late war. Dr. Maclean not only served in the army during the war but was a distinguished surgeon. He is an honored professor in the State University. If we had no other proofs of his devotion to the medical profession we have only to note the cases he presented to us yesterday. He is doing a great work throughout the state; his frame is not confined to the city in which he lives, but has spread throughout the whole west and the 06355Dominion of Canada. The doctor is a friend of every honest medical practitioner in the state, and is always ready to lend a willing and helping hand to those who have not had the same opportunities as himself. The older members of the profession have ruled this society for a long time; not but what they have done it wisely, but I am in favor of infusing young blood into the institution, reanimating it, and making it an honor to the state.

“This society should not be run in the interest of cliques and individuals, but purely in the interests of science. I trust, gentlemen, that you will have the good sense to elect Dr. Maclean. From what I know and have seen of the large number of medical gentlemen gathered here, no doubt the most representative body of the class that has ever met in the State of Michigan, I feel that his election is assured.”

Said Dr. A. B. Palmer in 1884 to the State Medical Society, discussing a motion to lay on the table a communication from the Women's Christian Temperance Union:

“I hope for the honor of the society and the profession that the motion to lay this communication on the table will be withdrawn, and that it will be properly referred for consideration and discussion at our next meeting.”

And virtue had abundant reward the following year when the president “introduced Mrs. J. M. Kinney, of Port Huron, who, in behalf of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, presented Prof. A. B. Palmer a beautiful bouquet.” (1885.)

The writer was not “among those present” at the latter meeting and is therefore unable to record impressions of Dr. Maclean's physiognomy as he introduced the bouquet bearers.

Dr. James A. Brown was the soul of hospitality and his sense of humor was keen. This he did not lose during the long months of racking pain (he suffered from caries of the vertebræ and paraplegia). “Where are you going, Frank” he inquired of his son, as were leaving him. “Nowhere in particular” or something equivalent was the reply, whereupon he casually remarked, “I understand they have a new bar at the Russell House.”

With the advent of the Chinese in considerable numbers during the latter part of the nineteenth century came to him a large clientele. They were extremely clannish and imitative, and without exception sought his ministration when ill. “They like strong and unpalatable medicine,” I once heard him declare. “A simple bitters, gentian, quinine will answer in the ordinary prescription, but when they're very sick I put in a little quassia.”

He pressed my hand on the occasion of my last visit and said with just the suggestion of emotion in his voice, “Well, boy, I shall never see you again.” His sweet soul took fight a few days later.

Dr. Brown and Dr. James F. Noyes were for years fast friends and 06456were accustomed, after their morning's work was done, to drive together “here and there” with an appetite for luncheon in view. They rode behind Dr. Brown's spanking team, Dr. Brown, attired in what would be regarded at the present time correct evening dress, making an impressive appearance. Eventually their friendship sustained a fracture, from what cause I never learned, but it was not repaired until just before Dr. Brown's death, when Dr. Noyes made a sympathetic call.

Though no orator, Dr. Brown was a shrewd politician and was highly influential in the group which was opposing compromise in the University-Maclean-Frothingham-Homeopathy controversy. He was born in Charlton, Saratoga County, New York, October 8, 1817; studied medicine at Geneva and at Albany Medical College; was graduate at Willoughby Medical College in 1842; practiced at Chagrin Falls, Ohio, at first; moved to Detroit in 1847.

He was twice vice president of the Michigan State Medical Society, was the first president of the Detroit Medical and Library Association and a member of the American Medical Association.

He was at different times trustee of the (then) Michigan Asylum for the Insane, Kalamazoo, and of the (then) Eastern Michigan Asylum, Pontiac. He was for many years surgeon to the Marine Hospital in Detroit and physician to the Detroit House of Correction.

His fellow physicians, Drs. Brodie, McGraw, Noyes, Morse Stewart, Eugene Smith, Klein, Gilbert and Hawes, speaking of him at a memorial meeting, concurred in the expression that he was “one of the most agreeable and successful physicians of the city.” 9

His was indeed a delightful personality. One who knew him well will, until the end of his life, cherish esteem and affection for him and for his family. His son, Frank W. Brown, also a physician, was a classmate and boon companion of the writer.

“Of the real inner life of Dr. Brown,” says the Detroit Lancet, “it is impossible to speak here and now. Of his kindly regard for and material assistance to young medical men, many can bear grateful testimony. A large head and a larger heart were ever at the service of his patients and friends. In a quite way he was ever performing deeds of real benevolence. A word or an act in season he knew how to tender to the needy in such a manner as to win their lasting gratitude. His calling he looked upon as a profession—infinitely elevated above any or all trades. It was his delight ever to honor this calling, both in public and private life. As a true physician of the olden type and a noble gentlemen, his memory will long be cherished by both the profession and people of this city and state.”

Dr. Donald Maclean in his prime was one of the most delightful of men. His friendships were strong and dependable, his attitude in the sick room a benefaction to the invalid and a ray of sunshine among his anxious attendants. He was highly gifted as a surgeon, operated handsomely, but 06557was never showy or spectacular. He was a pupil of Syme of Edinburgh and often quoted him to his classes.

He was once called in consultation in a surgical case in the family of “one of us.” Practically an entire day was consumed in the ministration and the question of compensation at least for “travelling expenses” was insistently present in the mind of his beneficiary. A modest check was forwarded. And collected? No—not by any means. It was returned with the following laconic and amiable expression: “Dear Doctor: When you are well-to-do, as I sincerely hope you sometime will be, if then perchance I am as poor as I expect to be, I'll accept this check but not before. With best regards and all good wishes, Donald Maclean.”

Writes Dr. Maclean—“Apart from all controversy (which I hate) and in the interest of scientific surgery (which I love) permit me to state the following interesting and relevant case.” 7 It was “In re Antiseptic Ovariotomy” and the date of the successful operation, 1883.

He certainly did hate (?) controversy.

“Dr. George W. Topping died at his home in DeWitt, Clinton County, January 14, 1895, at the age of sixty-seven years. He had been sick for several weeks, but it was thought he was getting better. The doctor died while sitting in his chair reading his mail matter. He rallied from his former illness which began last fall, and had so far recovered as to be able to go to Lansing. He was born at Mentz, Cayuga County, New York, December 11, 1828. He spent his boyhood days on a farm, and attended the district school, then went to Groton Academy, and later studied in the Normal School of Albany, where he was given a free scholarship. He taught school for some time, and then entered the office of Dr. J. V. Griggs of Montezuma, and commenced the study of medicine. Later he studied with his brother-in-law, Dr. W. S. Alaben, and took one term of lectures in the Wooster University, of Cleveland, Ohio. He then went to California, where he spent three years in mining, after which he returned to Lockport, New York, and took up to the study of Latin and German. In 1853 he entered the medical department of the University of Michigan, and in the spring of 1854 received his diploma, and at once settled in DeWitt, where he pursued the practice of his profession until his death. Dr. Topping was president of the State Medical Society in 1882, and was a Mason; a man highly esteemed by his profession as well as the laity...” 13

Dr. Topping married a sister of Dr. L. Anna Ballard of Lansing.

A “Topping” (G. W.) report in 1881 on alcohol in medicine from a committee appointed by the State Medical Society in response to a communication from the Executive Committee of the W. C. T. U., contains this pungent expression anent reckless prescription: “Yet we would not so far forget our duty to our patients as to refrain from giving them the remedies believed by us to be best suited to remove their infirmities, even though it should result in the use of alcoholic remedies. ‘To eat no meat or drink no wine lest it cause a brother to offend’ may be a good Christian precept, 06658but we very much doubt if any conscientious physician can withhold wine from a patient, who would clearly be benefited by its use, lest perchance some reckless mortal should misuse and misapply the wine, and thereby convert it into an evil.” 2

Dr. George E. Frothingham was a keen, impressive and convincing speaker. The persuasive manner in which he addressed students in the prosperous and nation-wide popular clinic which he built up at Ann Arbor was very like that of a contemporary, the celebrated John C. Dalton, physiologist of New York.

Biographies of Drs. Maclean and Forthingham appear in Volume I, Chapter IX.

In the University controversy ranged alongside Dr. Maclean was Dr. William Brodie, who was later (in 1886) president of the American Medical Association. He was a “friend indeed” to those whom he liked, an implacable foe to the—doutbless undeserving—whose methods he failed to approve. He enjoyed a large and succesful practice in Detroit; was surgeon to various civic organizations and chief surgeon to the Grand Trunk Railway System.

On a trip to Canada, “one of us” carried a suspicious looking but entirely innocuous roll. “Pass this boy's baggage,” he wrote to the Canadian Inspector, “He's all right.” It is related of him, with how much truth the writer cannot vouch, that at one time he would not trust a fever thermometer. Be this as it may he certainly had “tactus eruditus” when it came to diagnosis.

With other varieties of “tact(us)” he was not unduly burdened, but extraordinary fond of him his friends were. And those who enjoyed his friendship could have their way in his house unhampered, undisturbed; men, for example—boys then—like dear old Tracy Southworth of Monroe, his sometime student, and Dr. Frank W. Brown, who lived with his father, James a. Brown, just across Lafayette Avenue. ( See Volume I, Page 603.)

William Brodie was born of Scottish parents at Fawley Court, England, July 26, 1823. The lad migrated to America with his parents in 1832, where his father procured a farm about twelve mile from Rochester, New York. The son was educated in the local school and at the High School of Brockport, New York. At the age of twenty-four he decided to become a physician, and in 1847, he studied with Dr. William Wilson of Pontiac, Michigan. This period was followed by a year's attendance at Berkshire Medical College, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, then a year at the Vermont Medical College, and lastly at the College of Physicians and Surgeon, New York City, where he was graduated in 1850.

Immediately after graduation he began the practice of medicine in Detroit. Dr. Brodie, the remainder of his life, was actively identified with medical and civic associations. He was president of the Wayne County 06759Medical Society continuously from 1876 to 1890, with the exception of two years. He was president of the Michigan State Medical Society in 1876. He was secretary of the American Medical Association in 1857 and received the highest honor in the gift of the American Medical Association, namely, its presidency, in 1886.

Dr. Brodie was the first surgeon to volunteer from Detroit for service in the Civil War, where he was commissioned surgeon of the first regiment of the Michigan volunteers. He took charge of the wounded at the first battle of Bull Run. Dr. Brodie practiced surgery long before the era of antiseptics, yet his patients in large numbers recovered despite the lack of knowledge of antisepsis. This has been explained by the fact that Dr. Brodie was naturally clean, not only neat and clean about his person, but extraordinary clean with his instruments.

He was at one time editor of the Peninsula Journal of Medicine and Surgery, and also of the Therapeutic Gazette. He had for a long time been identified with the Detroit Board of Health and was at one time an alderman of Detroit. He was also at one time a professor in the Michigan College of Medicine as well as its successor, the Detroit College of Medicine. Dr. Brodie is the author of many scientific papers on both surgical and medical subjects.

He is described as being five feet, ten inches tall, as having reddish grey hair and closely cut whiskers, perhaps the so-called Van Dyke beard. He was of medium weight and possessed a nervous and energetic temperament. He was a man who deemed principle worth fighting for. Several obituary notices in medical journals of 1890 independently emphasize this features of Dr. Brodie's character, namely, loyalty to conviction. In November 1851 he married Jane Whitfield, who survived him at the time of his death, July 30, 1890. The family consisted of one daughter and two sons, one son, Benjamin, having followed his father's profession. Dr. Brodie was chief medical officer of the Grand Trunk Railway in the State of Michigan. 10

In his address as president of the State Medical Society in 1876 Dr. Brodie touches upon a variety of subjects, all of interest; among them he urges that the members “be not diverted by outside issues from the straight way that leads to unity, harmony and strength in all and every matter pertaining to the great and noble profession of legitimate medicine.” By the hypercritical this may not be regarded an altogether consistent attitude in view of his aptitude for wordy warfare—but “consistency” is a word without practical significance anyhow.

He deplores the fact that the medical field is opened “to any and every person whether educated or ignorant, qualified or unqualified to practice the healing art” and that the state is “overrun with all varieties and grades of medical impostors.” He advocates—and this is the important point in view of the much later movement in this direction—“a full three years' graded course of study” and that the requirements for admission (to the 06860medical department) he made equal to those necessary for entrance to the scientific. He makes an admirable recommendation that the systematic study of insanity be incorporated in the medical college curriculum. † With the then current pessimism, however, he admitted that “ it is a hard thing to confess the fallibility of science in the care of a diseased mind, yet the fact nevertheless remains.”

And as to specialism in general he quotes Dr. Robert Barnes in the London Lancet thus—“I have recently been honored by a lady of typical modern intelligence who consulted me about a fibroid tumor of the uterus; and lest I should stray beyond my business she was careful to tell me that Dr. BrownSéquard had charge of her nervous system, that Dr. Williams attended to her lungs, that her abdominal organs were entrusted to Sir William Gull, that Mr. Spencer Wells looked after her rectum, and that Dr. Walsh had her heart. If some adventurous doctor should determine to start a new specialty and open an institution for diseases of the umbilicus—the only region which as my colleague, Mr. Simon, says is unappropriated—I think I can promise him more than one patient.”

Away with the quips about the sense of humor being non-existent in the British Empire.

Dr. James H. Jerome of Saginaw, an outstanding figure in the most interesting of all medical controversies that have ever arisen in Michigan, died in the seventy-first year of his age, in Saginaw, August 8, 1883, of inflammation of the liver.

Recount his biographers, Dr. Geo. E. Ranney and Dr. H. B. Baker, “He was of vigorous intellect, keen perceptions, retentive memory, and independent character, and his manners of mingled courtesy and dignity marked him an old-school gentleman, alive to the issues and important questions of the day and age in which he lived.

“He helped to organize in 1866 the Michigan State Medical Society, did much to shape its policy, was twice elected its president and did as much as any other member to promote its interests.

“His sense of honor, especially among his professional brethren, and his stout opposition to every infringement of the code of medical ethics both in the society and out of it, made him an enemy to pretenders of every description.” 9

Dr. Jerome had a fine literary style. In a letter to Dr. O. C. Comstock, president of the Michigan Pioneer Society, he writes gracefully as follows:

“For many years of my life I have experienced much of the care and adjustment of fragmentary humanity in its evil hour, while to me it has been reserved to my seventieth year to know just how it was myself...

“It is a common understanding that as one's years advance the days and 06961nights follow each other in more rapid succession than in the springtime of our life. Such has not been quite my experience for the period above mentioned. In early life our pleasures are in prospect, in later years they are mainly in retrospect.

“I can scarcely call to mind a period of greater satisfaction than the one enjoyed at the last meeting of the society in Lansing. The occasion partakes more of the nature and interests of our Methodist love feasts...

“The privation to me gathers force from the consideration that we have less assurance of opportunities beyond the present. In spirit I am with you and earnestly hope that at your next gathering I may be present, a bodily presence. Until then, please accept my filial regard for such as are more favored than myself.” 9

From the transactions of the Michigan State Medical Society, 1884, it is learned that he was born at Cochecton, Wayne County, Pennsylvania, September 28, 1812, and removed to Michigan with his parents when a lad of about 15 years. His father died, leaving him, at the age of 18 years, to battle with life comparatively alone. He attended district school and had one year's tuition at the Ovid Academy. He served an apprenticenship as a hatter and followed that business until 1834, when he commenced the study of medicine and surgery with Dr. Moses Tompkins, near Hector, New York, attending the Geneva Medical College in the winter of 1834-1835. He attracted the attention and friendship of Dr. Willard Parker, professor of anatomy and physiology, by his talent in these branches.

Returning to Michigan, where his family had preceded him, he was employed in the land office at Detroit as a clerk under Major John Biddle, and subsequently under Michael Hoffman, and became very expert in the business of the office.

He finished lectures at Geneva College in the winter of 1837, received his diploma from the Board of State Censors, and commenced practice at Trumansburg, New York, where he soon acquired an excellent reputation as a physician and surgeon, and filled various honorable positions in medical societies. In 1855 he received the honorary degree of M.D. from Hobart Free College, and in July of the same year was elected professor of anatomy and physiology to his Alma Mater. In 1858 he was appointed physician-in-chief of the marine hospital at the port of New York; terminated his labors at Geneva College in 1859, and entered on his new duties in May of that year. He soon after resigned on account of differences with the commissioners of immigration, and returned to Trumansburg.

In 1865 he removed to Saginaw, Michigan. There he engaged in agriculture and lumbering quite extensively, and as these interests gradually absorbed his attention he ceased active practice, but never lost his interest in his loved profession and his regard for the society of his brothers in the practice of the healing art.

His domestic relations were characterized by deep affection, and his 07062genial smile was the sunlight of the household, where his loss is most keenly felt. His intercourse among his friends was of the most cordial character, his hospitability ample, and his friendship deep and lasting. Quick to oppose what he thought wrong in a friend, as in others, he reminds us of the proverb, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

Dr. Jerome was president of the Board of Counselors of the Detroit Medical College at the time of his death, and had been a member since its organization.

Papers by Dr. Jerome included “The Treatment of the Michigan Insane,” which appears in the Transactions of Michigan State Medical Society, Volume I, and “Domestic Sanitation,” published in the Transactions of Michigan State Board of Health, 1881.

Dr. Jerome entered upon the duties of president of the State Medical Society, 1868, “with no ordinary emotion.” He was reminiscent and mentioned landing at the City of the Straits forty years before. There he soon knew each inhabitant by name.

Of physicians Drs. Henry, Hendry, Chapin, Hurd, Brown, Hall, Clark and Whiting, the latter two were then living. He mentions feelingly a “convivial occasion” one year before when Dr. Whiting gave early reminiscences.

Concerning schools, hospitals, infirmaries and asylums of Michigan, he inquires, “Is there anything more Godlike in this world than the erection and full equipment of institutions where the sick, the lame, the palsied, the blind, the deaf, the speechless, or the bereft of reason may find a home and a shelter from the pitiless awards of individual charity?” Who “would covet a greater honor than a recognized agency in the establishment and endowment of institutions of this character?” “Is it arrogance in me to claim,” he asks, “with unpretending confidence that foremost in the creation, maintenance and perpetuity of these institutions were the members of the medical profession in this state?”

Discussing “vitalism and organism, humanism, and mechanicalism, elcleticism and galvanism, beside a multitude of minor ‘isms’,” he inquires, “Are they dead brethen, or do they sleep?” And answers, “They are not dead, but are like the caterpillar of today that coils himself in some nook or cranny to await the coming of the new year, when his successor on gilded wing shall come forth far more beautiful and attractive than the original worm.”

He takes a hand in the University muddle. When it, “as a whole,” he says, demands enlargement for the better accomodation of its growing patronage, and the maintenance of its prestige, requiring aid beyond the limits of its original endowment, and an application is made to the state legislature for such purpose, they are met at the threshold with the seducter's proposition that if the only self-sustaining department in the entire institution, with the single exception of the law, will doff its chastity, prostitute its virtue, lay aside its distinctive characteristics, and cohabit with the 07163merest tissue of fanciful speculation that ever issued from the brain of a pretended philosopher, and give tone and character to a more than half extinct dogma, the sugar-plum of their debasement shall be meted out. A proposition more monstous, who can conceive?

“To the honor of the Board of Regents it may be said that the legislative proposition was so repugnant to their sense of injustice and propriety as to cause them to repel with just indignation the proferred aid, pregnant with such humiliating conditions, and for a time the friends of the University, reposing confidence in the virtue and stability of these guardians of a sacred trust, felt no concern for its safety or welfare. Such tempting bait, however, could not long remain on any conditions within their grasp without producing its usual effect.

“And the solution of the difficult problem was undertaken upon a purely financial basis, and after a year's delay and a habit of familiarizing the mind with the subject once so abhorrent to their better sense, and the interposition of Divine Providence in the removal of an honored member of their board, with most unfortunate substitution, the obstacles once so formidable were so far modified that this legislative bantling might be led by some circuitous and unfrequented route to the rear portals of this temple of science, and introduced to fellowship.”

Dr. Jerome then quotes Pope's “Vice is a monster,” etc., and declares that “this much having been accomplished by the regents of the University, left no alternative for the professors of the medical department other than to retire from the field of their long and cherished labors in obedience to the behests of those who had the legal right to cotrol its destinies...

“And if we may not cherish, we are not forbidden to let it alone. And this I trust will be the only method of antagonism adopted by the State Society.” 3

Dr. Jerome answers his own query, “Do the Exigencies of the Case Require that Physicians and Lawyers Should be Educated in Their Professions by the Taxable Inhabitants of the State?” as the reader will doubtless infer from what has gone before. The Detroit Lancet “while admitting the above question to a free discussion” in its pages, very wisely warns, “We wish it distinctly understood that we will publish no personalities.”

Resolutions protesting against the action of the Board of Regents proposed by Dr. E.P. Christian came up for discussion in 1868 through the report of the Committee on Resolutions. A recommendation was made in the second resolution that for the present the professors should retain their chairs “but should such changes in the curriculum be accomplished as would directly affect such curriculum, we believe that, in honor to themselves, the profession to which they belong, and whose sympathies thay receive, they could not consistently remain, and their resignations should be respectfully submitted.” This report was signed by Drs. Wm. Brodie, I.H. Bartholomew, C.T. Southworth, Wm. H. DeCamp, and Hamilton E. Smith.

Dr. P. Klein “heartily agreed with the spirit of the report, and in this respect he begged humbly to dissent from the views expressed the previous day in the president's report to let the matter alone ... He was proud to say that there is yet a living nucleus in the University who hold on, and he trusted that the State Society would not only sustain those men, but would also counsel those who had resigned to retract their resignations. He perceived that some of the latter had accepted a position in connection with a new enterprise projected in this city, which course he regretted, because he had doubts of its success, though he had the utmost confidence in the ability and honor of the gentlemen who had projected the new enterprise.” The doctor continued to enlarge upon the merits and demerits of the new project, until Dr. Jenks rose and called the speaker to order, as the Detroit school was not under discussion.

“Dr. Palmer, one of the ex-professors of the Michigan University, said he was aware that remarks he might make would be liable to be understood [sic]. He felt deeply on the subject. The best part of his life had been spent in the University. He could not think thereon without emotion. [At this period the veteran professor was compelled by emotion to cease speaking, for which he apologized to the society.] He believed that their action in resigning had been generally sustained by the profession of the state. He would not question the motives of the Board of Regents. They needed the money, and accepted it, he believed, without any love of homeopathy ... he indicted his resignation in strong terms. .. Uncertain as to the action of the Board of Regents, he had accepted a position in a new enterprise, which he believed would succeed. In this Detroit School of Medicine, where instruction of a clinical character will be given, he had consented to give instruction on a certain subject not treated of in the Michigan University.

“The report was unanimously accepted.” 3

At the meeting of the State Medical Society in 1877 Dr. Jerome moved that the Committee on Medical Legislation be discontinued and in support of the motion made the following facetious remarks:

“During all the years of the existence of this society an effort has been put forth in good faith to establish and maintain a friendly and fraternal relation with the legislature of our state believing that mutual good would be derived from comity of action. But I may safely say that instead of like kindly sentiment being reflected from that body, no opportunity has been lost to calumniate and humiliate the profession of medicine by the legislature of Michigan.

“The usual method and opportunity of this display has been on the application of the regents of the University for money to meet the annual wants of that institution for educational purposes—not medical—as that department was self-supporting. The constitution of our state has wisely prohibited the legislature from any governing influence over the University, 07365committing it to the care and guardianship of a Board of Regents, selected from men of high educational attainment, who are supposed to better understand the wants of a higher grade of culture than the common school, with which our solons were left to grapple at will. If we pass over former legislatures and come to consider the present one, we find an unique body, not inaptly denominated by the little breezy Evening News, the ‘Lansing Grammar and Spelling Schools.’

“The head-center of the spelling school, as far relates to our profession, is one C. B. Mills, whom I understood to be one of the ‘hardshell,’ itinerating clerical persuasion, with a short-hand medical attachment from Tuscola, with whom to know less than all the world beside would be a mortal sin.

“In his report to the spelling school on medical matters, he descants thus, as we find in the Legislative Journal of March 10: ‘And when it is considered that the great majority of the members of these associations that are not interested in other rival institutions, are men whose medical culture bears no comparison with that provided for in the University, the significance of this opposition is apparent.’ Having delivered himself of this gorgeous proposition, as if to tone down a little and even up with the University, lest they might put on some additional airs, he very kindly makes mention of the arrangements made by the doctors of the University, for the care and general management of the hospital under their charge, and particularly relative to their nurses; that if ‘none can be found who can be trusted among Americans, it is respectfully suggested that Chinamen be employed, or Hottentots might be imported for that service.’ The talent of this mixed body is so diversified, however that they need not confine their labours exclusively to the higher development in medical literature, consequently have found leisure to grapple with the great question of Sabbath desecration, so frequently indulged in by the poorer classes, and more particularly by our German population, who have attempted surreptitiously to economize their time by getting married on the Sabbath day, and now find to their utter consternation that such a thing could not be done at all. Poor things! Happily, however, for this class, the bill of rights adopted by the grammar and spelling schools does not specify whether the Christian or the hardshell Sabbath is the one intended.

“We now find the ‘head center’ on a bull-dozing mission to the regents of the University, whose total subserviency is demanded, endorsed by eighty-three members of the Lansing mixed schools, the results of which are to be known hereafter.

“In one of the particular moods of this august body, it was discovered that in some way for cousins to get married begat idiots; upon which practice they deemed it their duty to affix their great seal of condemnation. On this branch of their duty the New York Times of April 25 [1877] has commented quite to our liking, which we beg leave to read:

“‘MICHIGAN COUSINS’

“‘There may be an exceptional desire on the part of the people of Michigan to marry their cousins, but the introduction of a law into the legislature of that state prohibiting the marriage of cousins does not prove that such is the case. All the old fashioned Bibles—those six inches in thickness which were used to raise the youngest child to the level of the family dinner table—expressly forbid a man to marry his grandmother; but it is notorious that at no time since the beginning of the Christian era has there been any general desire on the part of grandchildren to marry their grandparents. The true meaning of the Michigan bill undoubtedly is, that some rich legislator, with a willful daughter and a worthless nephew, desires to have a legal pretext to prevent the young people from wasting his kerosene by sitting up till midnight in his front parlor.

“The argument that cousins should not marry is based upon the alleged fact that the offspring—which is a delicate way of alluding to children—of such marriages are universally idiots, with deaf, dumb and blind attachments. The statistics of our various asylums show that among the patients whose minds and senses are not in good running order, are frequently found the offspring of cousins. Of course, if cousins intend to act in this inexcusable way, they ought not to be allowed to marry. The argument is an excellent one, were it only based on facts; but, as it is not so based, it is rather more worthless than the theories as to Brooklyn slums and the imaginary confessions which the World delights to publish.

“Of course there are a certain number of professional idiots whose parents are cousins. So, too, we find in our idiot asylums patients who owe their origin to marriages between Presbyterians and Methodists. It is clear that, if the former fact justifies a law against the intermarriage of cousins, the latter requires a law forbidding marriage between two opposite and probably equally excellent sects. Moreover, idiots have been produced in quantities far in excess of the demand by parents having no natural or religious affinity. If the Michigan legislature really wants to strike an irresistible blow at idiots, it should forbid marriage entirely. Surreptitious idiots would, of course, from time to time make their appearance within the borders of the state, but the regular sources of supply would be cut off, and the people would have to import their legislators from other states.

“‘If the cousins of Michigan are wise they will collect statistics showing that not one of the members of the Michigan legislature is the offspring of cousins, after which the legislature can no longer with any consistency maintain the preposterous theory that idiots are the results of cousinly intermarriage.’

“For these and kindred reasons, Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Society, I think that self-respect demands that we discontinue our efforts to fraternize with the legislature, and therefore hope the resolution will prevail.”

Elsewhere in this history under the heading “Malpractice Litigation and the Physician as a Witness” there appears the presidential address of Dr. Foster Pratt which is every word enjoyable. He was a fluent speaker and his phraseology often approached the poetic. ( See memorial of Dr. Abram Sager.) He was a surgeon in the Civil War and afterward practitioner of medicine in Kalamazoo. He was a sometime highly influential member of the Board of Trustees of the (then) Michigan Asylum for the Insane, and was the author of a paper on “Increase of Insanity in the United States” read before the American Public Health Association in Detroit, November 15, 1883. He also wrote an “Historical Sketch of Early Masonry in Michigan.” (Transactions of Masonic Grand Lodge of Michigan.)

“Sanitary Rules versus Theories” is the title of a paper read by Dr. Pratt at the Sanitary Convention in Battle Creek in 1881.

Dr. Alfred I. Sawyer was born in Huron County, Ohio, in 1828, one of a family of eleven. “Every obstacles was thrown in his way” of receiving 07567an education, declares his biographer, “till be hard work, teaching school in winter, and attending the Norwalk Academy in the spring and fall, and by studying while others slept, he succeeded in acquiring an average academical education and had made arrangements with one of his brothers to take a classical course.” 9

He was graduated at the Homeopathic Hospital College, Cleveland, in 1854; attended the medical department of New York University in the winter of 1856 and 1857; “became somewhat disgusted with general practice” and “proposed to pursue some specialty,” but after fitting himself for this, “sources of revenue unexpectedly failed him,” and he was obliged to leave New York, where he had planned to carry on.

He came to Monroe in 1857 and speedily acquired commanding influence in political, educational and Masonic circles, but “even so he has shone if anything with far more brilliancy in his chosen profession, and among his learned colleagues. There is no man who has done more for the advancement of medical science than has Dr. A. I. Sawyer of Monroe.” 9

“The homeopathic department of the University of Michigan owes its life and sustenance to him.”

The early efforts in 1853 and 1855 to secure recognition of homeopathy in the medical department of the University were unsuccessful—among alleged reasons being non-action on the part of the Supreme Court upon a writ of mandamus directed to the regents, a “farce” which “cost Sawyer $155.00 for attorneys' fees alone, not to mention what he paid for a person to remain in Lansing and lobby for the passage of a bill during the entire session, or his own personal expenses there and elsewhere in the interest of the cause.” 9

“In 1869 the regents agreed to comply with the law of 1855 providing the friends of homeopathy would secure a repeal of the obnoxious law of 1867” which “attacked the very fountain head of the University” by amending the mill tax law and making revenue from this contingent upon complaisance on the part of the regents. They agreed but “acted in bad faith and undertook to both comply with, and evade the law by appointing Dr. Charles Hempel professor of theory and practice of medicine, and proposed to locate him in Detroit instead of Ann Arbor,” but the “duplicity of the board was rewarded by the Auditor General of the State refusing to honor the warrant of the University because the law of 1855 had not been complied with.” 9

Compromise was offered by the regents and some of the “discouraged” of the homeopathic fraternity were disposed to accept a proposition of conciliation on the basis of creating a branch school outside of Ann Arbor—not so Dr. Sawyer. As chairman of the committee to whom the matter was referred he reported as follows: “RESOLVED, That when the same rights, benefits and privileges that are now enjoyed by the old school doctors shall have been accorded to homeopaths on the University campus, we will be satisfied and not before.”

Through session after session of the legislature from this time until 1875 when the regents organized the homeopathic department Dr. Sawyer fought valiantly. He was often thwarted but never put down—was “in attendance more or less during every session of the legislation since 1867 and for ten years nearly every session of the Board of Regents.” In June, 1877, he had at commencement exercises “the proud satisfaction of occupying the same platform with the old school faculty, with the president of the University of Michigan, and witnessing the graduation of the first class from the homeopathic department.”

“A great and influential school of medicine had placed him at its head.” In 1889 he was elected president of the National Institute of Homeopathy. “He was justly proud of the homage of the act, and his townsmen were pleased at the laurels won by one of their number.”

His death from apoplexy occurred in May, 1891. Among the floral offerings was “a cross four feet in height” of “calla and ascension lilies,” a gates ajar, “beautiful in every detail,” and “rare flowers in exquisite designs.”

Dr. Sawyer's correspondence ( See Page 14) bulks large in the controversy concerning the appointment of the medical superintendent of the Northern Michigan Asylum (now Traverse City State Hospital) in 1885. The trustees “may”—so reads the law—appoint a superintendent from the homeopathic school of medicine.

The trustees chose to regard this as permissive—not mandatory—and elected to the position Dr. James D. Munson, theretofore assistant medical superintendent of the (then) Eastern Michigan Asylum at Pontiac. There was a bubbling of unavailing protest over the matter but nobody's serenity other than that of Dr. Sawyer was seriously disturbed.

Dr. Isaac N. Eldrige of Flint, one of Dr. Sawyer's supporters, who died January, 1893, had been a successful practitioner of homeopathy for forty years.

He was born August 5, 1818, at Bergen, New York. “To his efforts probably more than to any other one influence was due the establishment of the school of homeopathy as a branch of the Michigan State University and for years he was connected with the school as a member of the Board of Examiners or in some other capacity.”

He was a “close student” and had “the courage of his convictions.” “In conversation he often expressed himself so frankly that it sometimes gave him the appearance of being inconsiderate of others' feelings, but such was never the case.” “He enjoyed the respect of the community and the faith reposed in him by most of his patients was something remarkable.” He “was a member of the Court Street Methodist Church.” 9

Dr. George E. Ranney of Lansing was for many years secretary of the State Medical Society. He was a veteran of the Civil War and a thoroughly competent surgeon. Candor compels the statement that he was not 07769imbued with idealistic altruism, and that “competition” in his bright lexicon was synonymous with “rivalry.” He asked no quarter, accorded none, and if he ever presented the “other cheek” to one who had taken liberties with the reverse side, this episode did not occur in the presence of the writer, who knew him well and highly respected his medical and surgical accomplishments. He wrote forcefully and artistically as the following extracts from “Achievements in Medicine—Incentives to its Scientific Study” read before the Lansing City Medical Society, July 7, 1876, furnish excellent evidence:

“We admit that we have not found the philosopher's stone, the veritable elixir of life, or the El Dorado of perpetual youth; but we have controlled the plague and the leprosy through quarantine and hygienic measures, instead of resorting to the futile effort to drive them away by putting up prayers in the churches or trusting to the prayers of the priests for deliverance. I will mention briefly a few of the important things which have recently been done by our profession for the good of mankind. As we view our medical temple, and walk through its galleries, and behold the work of its master builders, what an array of illustrious names greet our memory.

‘In this fair niche, by countless billows laved, Trace the deep lines that Sydenham engraved; On you broad front, that breasts the changing swells, Mark where the ponderous sledge of Hunter fell; By the square buttress look where Velpeau stands, The stone yet warm from his uplifted hands.’

“We behold the statue of Jenner, who only seventy-eight years ago announced his discovery of vaccination, which has nearly banished a disease from the land which in England alone claimed 45,000 victims annually and disfigured as many more. Smallpox attacked young and old alike, and nearly all were expected sooner or later to have it. Those not disfigured were exceptions to the rule. †

“We have passed the statues of Hippocrates, Galen, Ambroise Paré and others, and now linger for a moment near the bust of Laennec, with the stethoscope in hand. The chest had its language that no human ear could understand until Laennec, applying the principles of acoustics, took a cedar tube, and, putting it to his ear, asked the chest a thousand questions, which were correctly answered through the vibrations of the air in the lungs, and the heart murmured in his ear its long-hidden secrets. His discovery has rendered it possible to diagnose with wonderful accuracy the diseases of the heart and lungs, and enables us to determine upon their rational treatment.

“Passing along, we see the bust of Sanctoria, and are reminded of the thermometer, and the wonderful story that it tells us at the bedside of our patients. Among those who have placed the word under obligation to them, and whose portraits we might expect to find, are the Hunters, Bells, Cooper, Abernethy, Bright, Forbes, Simpson, Syme, Pereira, Ferguson, Erichsen, Paget, Wells, Bowman, of Great Britain; Lobstein, Bouillaud, Broussais, Richerand, Cloquet, Cruveilhier, Desmarres, Sichel, Dupuytren, Bichat, of France; Hebra, Gruber, Rokitansky, Virchow, Langenbeck, of Germany, and those of many Americans who occupy conspicuous places.

“Anesthetics have uncrowned ‘old King Pain’ and the patient afflicted with tumor, necrosed bone, or lacerated limb, by it is wrapped in unconsciousness, while the surgeon, with knife, scalpel, and saw, does the work which is to make him well. When the patient emerges from the vale of Lethe he can hardly realize that the operation has been performed, as he had experienced no anguish or pain; and if Esmarch's bandage and the ligature have been used, he may look in vain for evidences which blood might reveal, for during his sleep a important though painless and bloodless operation has been performed with a deliberation and confidence unknown to the surgeons of the eighteenth century.

“Through the delicate needle of the hypodermic syringe we convey to the very seat of pain, the torture of disease, an appropriate antidote. The ophthalmoscope reveals to us the internal chambers of the eye, the mote, enlarged blood vessel, fiber, or opacity that obstructs the vision. The laryngoscope enables us to see and touch and put in tune the vocal cords. With the aspirator we enter the pleural cavity, the abdomen, the bladder, the liver, and even the heart, with safety, and empty them of morbid effusions or retained secretions.

“By transplanting skin to parts extensively denuded of integument, we have rendered 07870it possible to make them sound, and avoid the contraction and deformity that would come from an otherwise extensive cicatrix. Ingenious instruments and the wonderful skill of the surgeon have made man a toy in his hands. We have not been able to arrest “Old Time” and make him retrace his steps, but we have dulled his scythe and impeded his destructive march, and added new spaces to the dial of man's chronometer of life. During fifty years ending in 1844 we decreased his harvest of death twenty-two per cent in certain parts of England, and wherever statistics have been kept, equally gratifying results have followed in other places during and since that time. There was fifty per cent less mortality in London during the same years of the nineteenth century than during similar years of the seventeenth century—the difference being as great as the difference between an ordinary year and a year of the cholera.

“Typhoid fever is now considered a preventable and under the control of sanitary laws. Scurvy has been nearly driven from the ocean, and the wilds of India have been reclaimed. The etiology of cutaneous diseases has been studied and classified, and in the treatment of most of them we have achieved a triumphant success. We cannot always, as desired by Macbeth, ‘minister to a mind diseases, and pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow, but we can often attack those diseases once deemed incurable and bid the leper be clean.

“Among the manifold sufferings with which man is threatened in consequence of the tenderness of his nature, irritation of the mind is one of the saddest; but thanks to the efforts of our profession and the munificent co†peration of state and municipal governments, asylums have been established for these unfortunates, where, under scientific management and treatment, from 70 to 80 per cent are restored to health. In the United States alone 26,433 insane persons are receiving treatment in state asylums, and 2,008 receive accommodations in private institutions. Aware of the molecular change that trains of thought and moral influence may produce in the brain, and regarding the pathology as taking place in the brain itself, the treatment has rationally resolved itself into psychical and medical. The various forms of insanity are without doubt as old as the human race. Our knowledge of them reaches back into the dusty past where its history is blended with mythology; to a time when insanity was looked upon as coming from an evil or divine spirit, and insane patients were accordingly treated cruelly or leniently, but always with a pious fear.”

“To the recruit the campaign is still an unrealized achievement. The rigors of battle[s] that must be fought are unseen in the roseate lights of the victory—unconquerable youth must be his. But to us veterans even the joys of having fought our good fight do not dim our remembrance of the heights we have climbed and the foes we have met,” writes Dr. Ranney in a “Retrospect of the Early History of the Michigan State Medical Society.” 6 Dr. Pratt he calls “the diplomat and parliamentarian.” Parliamentarian he was, magnificently, but for diplomacy except in a restricted sense he never displayed, in my opinion (C. B. B.) exaggerated regard. As to his estimates of other controversialists, Dr. Ranney's opinions and those of the writer are in accord. “William Brodie, the born leader; Jerome, the witty and ready talker; Homer O. Hitchcock with his ponderous sledgehammer blows; the eminent physicians and surgeons Frothingham and Maclean; Dr. Rynd, the fluent and forceful orator.” And it should not be forgotten that at the time of these mellow reminiscences (1915), the battle-smoke of the seventies had rolled away.