giving the necessary support to these officers, the national homoopathic body of this country ought to give their unqualified approval of such action.

The resolutions were unanimously adopted.

CASE OF BAILEY VS. NEILSON.

D. THAYER, M.D, of Boston: I regret very much that the duty devolves upon me of presenting the charges of Dr. J. B. Bailey against Dr. J. C. Neilson, both of Charlestown, Mass., with the accompanying documents. I move that they be referred to a committee of seven.

DR. MORGAN: Will the effect of that action be to require the taking of testimony before a committee who live in various parts of the country; or will it be expedient to appoint a subcommittee, to be aided by such members of the Institute in Boston or thereabouts as they shall think proper?

THE PRESIDENT: The chair is not advised as to the nature of the application.

DR. GREGG: I think it is a subject which does not belong to this Institute at all. I protest against such subjects being brought before the Institute. It is simply a local matter, and I move its indefinite postponement.

DR. MORGAN: I second the motion. This appears to be a matter for the Massachusetts Society to settle, instead of bringing it here.

DR. HEMPEL: Most of us are unacquainted with the nature of this difficulty. To vote understandingly, we ought to have a general idea of what it is; if it is possible for the gentleman to give us an idea of this difficulty in a few words, I think it is important that we should have it.

DR. THAYER: I offered these papers as they were sent to me by a gentleman who feels that the greatest injustice has been done to him. I proposed their reference to a committee who should investigate the matter. Why does a gentleman who

knows nothing about a matter second a motion for its indefinite postponement? I believe it was Lycurgus who once said that the best government is that in which a wrong done to one is a wrong done to all. I know there has been an outrage committed upon an individual here, which no man present would ever submit to, never! If this matter rests here, I have done my duty. I have not the slightest interest in the case, but justice between man and man requires us to sustain the right; for justice is a gem, and fair play is a jewel.

DR. FRANKLIN: Really, I think this Institute has too much upon its hands to turn itself into a court of correction and reprimand. If we are to reprimand every little indiscretion, we will have our hands full, without any reference to the business of this Institute. Let personal affairs be settled where they originate. I trust that the good feeling and harmony now prevailing will not be disturbed, and that this matter will be withdrawn. Let no personalities or recriminations be permitted to enter the walls of this Institute.

DR. BEEBE: Can Dr. Thayer state to the Institute the substance of the charges brought? If there is anything in them affecting the professional character of one of our number, we ought to investigate them. If it is a personal matter, we have nothing to do with it; but, if it bears on the character of one of our members, we cannot, in justice to ourselves, let it alone.

DR. THAYER: It is a matter very gravely touching the character of an individual, and seriously affecting the condition of homœopathy in the neighborhood of Boston. If further remark is necessary I will go on, but I hope not. I wish that the charges may be referred to a committee. I am willing that the matter shall rest there, having discharged my duty.

H. B. CLARKE, M.D.: I learn that the question has been settled by the Boston Academy of Homœopathic Medicine. I do not know anything about the merits of the quarrel (for I believe it

amounts to about that), but I, for one, protest against its being lugged in here to occupy our time.

DR. THAYER: The gentleman calls it a quarrel, and says the matter has been settled by the Boston Academy of Homœopathic Medicine. I wish to say the question is very far from being settled by the Boston Academy.

J. P. DAKE, M.D.: We must take action here that comports with the character of this body. We have arraigned members of this Institute, tried them, and expelled them for unprofessional conduct. I should be sorry to see the day when we should refuse to examine charges against members which would render them unworthy to remain with us. Now, it seems to me, if there are charges to be preferred here against a member of this Institute, that it is proper that we should appoint a special committee to examine the case and report. Let us not take up two or three hours of our time in discussing it here. If the gentlemen will withdraw their motions, I will move the reference of the case to a special committee.

The question being upon indefinite postponement, further discussion was decided to be out of order.

The motion to postpone was lost.

DR. DAKE: I move that it be referred to a special committee of five. Seconded and carried.

The President appointed as the committee Drs. J. P. Dake, E. B. Thomas, L. M. Kenyon, C. J. Hempel and E. C. Franklin.

CLINICAL MEDICINE AND ZYMOSES.

The Bureau, through their chairman, H. D. Painc, M.D., presented a report, which was accepted and referred to the Committee on Publication. It consisted of the following articles:

Some Suggestions upon Hydrothorax; by S. M. Cate, M.D. (Section III., Art. 7).

The Epidemic of Yellow Fever at New Orleans in 1867; by Wm. H. Holcombe, M.D. (Section III., Art. 8).

Case of Obstruction of the Bowels; by Geo. E. Belcher, M.D. (Section III., Art. 9).

Tuberculosis with Sound Lungs; by David Cowley, M.D. (Section III., Art. 10).

Thermometrical Phenomena in Disease; by J. J. Mitchell, M.D., (Section III., Art. 11).

PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY.

R. MCMURRAY, M. D., offered the following resolutions:

Resolved, That it is the duty of homœopathic physicians to prosecute the study of pathological anatomy in its fullest extent, as a means of perfecting their knowledge of the nature of disease through its effects.

Resolved, That the knowledge derived from the revelations of pathological anatomy is, and ever must be, an indispensable assistance in the task of selecting the proper remedies in the treatment of diseases.

- –

DR. MCMURRAY: Mr. President, it is the duty of the physi cian to know everything that can be learned with regard to the human system, in health and in disease. It is true that the revelations of pathological anatomy the results of the dissection of the cadaver- give no knowledge of the disease per se, in its true nature; that is intangible. But the same thing can be said of electricity, and many other intangibles which are known only by their effects. But by these it is supposed that we have a very fair knowledge of their nature and character.

-

Again, it is said that we have never been able to find out certain effects and causes, the causes of, or effects from, some peculiar nervous affections, for instance. This is also true; but does this prove that there are no such causes or effects? To deny their existence because we have not seen them, is simply begging the question. Pathological anatomy is of importance for the light which it casts upon the value of symptoms. We depend very much upon the totality of the symptoms, as giving the character of the disease, and as a basis of prescription. Now, I contend

that symptoms are simply the language that is addressed to us. It holds precisely the same position and relation to internal changes that language does to action of the mind; and it becomes our duty to learn the meaning of every symptom, as a child learns the meaning of every word. Through this medium we derive our information. How else was ever discovered that peculiar and fatal disease called Bright's disease of the kidneys? How did Lytle ever frame his magnificent system of pathology if not simply by the revelations of dissection, by comparing one case with another, one set of symptoms with another, and all with the result of necropsy?

And now as to the influence of pathological knowledge upon the selection of remedies. It is a fundamental principle in our school, I believe, that the effects of all medical substances. are more or less confined to certain organs or tissues. Well, if we confess ourselves ignorant of what symptoms mean,- of what is going on inside, we are just so far from knowing precisely the tissues affected. Again, we know the increased susceptibility of a diseased tissue or organ to the effect of drugs. This consideration gives its force to the demand for pathological investigation. Next we notice an objection to this study which is urged with considerable force; and this is, the generalization which it favors: the information thus derived simply gives classes of symptoms. But, from the peculiarity of the structure of a diseased organ, the elective character of medicines will suggest a class of drugs in which you will probably find the proper remedy. No individualization is necessary. The class from which to select the remedy will depend upon the character of the organ affected. Lastly, it is urged that our school disowns this source of information. I deny that of our school as a whole, but admit its truth as to the teachings of some of our best physicians and some of our authors.

DR. C. J. HEMPEL: I move a simple amendment to the phraseology,— that in one of these resolutions, where the word “effects"