








      http://www.archive.org/details/allopathyhomoeop00hilliala


Transcriber's note:

   Hyphenation and spelling have been retained as in the original.
   Both "household" and "house-hold" were used in the original;
   unusually spelled words include: practitoners, peurile,
   unwaranted, brigther and recieved.

   The oe-ligature is represented by the letters oe enclosed in
   brackets ([oe]).





ALLOPATHY AND HOMOEOPATHY

Before the Judgment of Common Sense!

by

F. HILLER, M.D.







San Francisco:
Bruce's Job Printing House, 535 Sacramento Street,
1872



    _It is difficult to carry the Torch-Light of Truth through the
    masses, without stepping occasionally upon a toe or burning a
    wig or a head-dress._




  To

    WILLIAM SHARON, Esq.,
    ISAAC L. REQUA, Esq.,
    A. K. P. HARMON, Esq.,
    SAMUEL G. THELLER, Esq.

GENTLEMEN:

I have taken the liberty to dedicate this offering to you, as a token
of respect and esteem. This, together with a grateful remembrance of
the courtesies extended to me, and the support which I have derived
from your friendship, will be, I hope, a sufficient excuse for the
liberty I have taken.

          Very truly, yours, etc.

              F. HILLER, M.D.

          San Francisco, 1872.


  TO THE

  MEMORY

  OF

  SAMUEL HAHNEMANN

  THE DISCOVERER OF

  THE TRUE LAW OF CURE

  Born April 10th, 1775;--Died June 4th, 1843.





LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

It is a remarkable and at the same time a terrible and most lamentable
fact, that the practice of medicine--an art of daily necessity and
application, most nearly affecting the dearest interests and well
being of mankind, and to the improvement of which we are encouraged
and impelled by the strongest motives of interest and humanity, of
love for our neighbor and emulous zeal for professional skill and
superiority therein--should, after a probation of so long a period,
and recorded experience of at least two thousand years, still remain,
as it confessedly does in most respects, so little understood and
generally of such doubtful and uncertain application.

The present age, unlike any that has preceded it, is peculiarly one of
rigid, radical and fundamental examination. Everything in the Heavens
above, or in the Earth beneath, is tested and retested; analyzed,
synthetized and submitted to the crucible of stern reason, and the
logical conclusion of experience; even to the extreme of possibility.
This is true not only of the material universe, but of all mental
and moral conditions, of social, political and even religious
institutions. Nothing, in this day, and especially in this country
of free thought and liberty of speech, is taken for granted merely
because it can lay claim to the honors of a great antiquity, or can
number thousands or millions of adherents. Vast differences are to be
observed in governments, churches, creeds and social practices; and
all, however opposite and apparently antagonistic, are working out a
solution to the problem--

  "WHAT IS TRUTH?"

Conservatism is fast dying out, hidden and smothered by the
ever-flowing tidal-waves of progression. Radicalism ceases to become
radical, by the daily and hourly recurrence of startling discoveries,
and new, unheard-of, and unexpected adaptations of old laws.
The mistakes of to-day will be found to be mistakes, and will be
rectified. Whenever and wherever freedom holds her sway, evil must
work out its own destruction, and good enthrone itself in the hearts
of those benefitted by its benign influence. In this spirit, and with
such views, let us look at the progress of Medical Science that we
may learn from the experience of the past to correctly estimate the
developments of the present and aid wisely in the working for a more
glorious future.

Medicine has been--not inaptly styled--"The daughter of dreams." From
the time of Hippocrates until now, the great body of the profession
has been swayed by conflicting theories, founded upon either the
wholly unsupported fancies and conjectures of their authors, or
unwarrantably built upon isolated facts, often accidental in their
occurence, partial in their observation, and improperly understood in
their inherent nature and theoretical significance, pointing to a law
of action widely different from the one in support of which they had
been adduced. All branches of medicine have been involved in these
crude absurdities; nor has the nomenclature of any department of
science, even in our day, been entirely purged from the errors and
misleadings with which the past so fruitfully abounds.

To mark the improvement and advancement in the various branches of
medical science; to compare the present with the past; to observe the
unfolding growth, maturity, and decay of medical creeds; to discern
the power of those master-minds, that, far beyond the ages in which
they lived fore-shadowed the forth-coming discoveries that were to
make other men immortal; to sigh over the incredulity of whole races,
whose blind and dogmatical adherence to the theories of some prominent
physiologist or anatomist--was at once silenced by the light of a new
truth, suddenly and clearly promulgated by a single mind. To do all
these things, was the labor of a whole life; volumes could be written
in such investigation, and still thousands of facts be left untouched
and forgotten, forever buried in the chaos of medical creeds, medical
truths and medical fictions.

Old Physic has for several centuries past drifted in the wrong
direction, striking occasionally upon a rock, but finds itself to day
further off from shore than ever before.

Medicine, the oldest and most important of all branches of science,
has not kept up with developments in other departments, but the rays
of light have already deeply penetrated into the darkness of the past,
fast undermining the building of the so-called "Rational Medicine"
with all its hypothesis and traditions.

       *       *       *       *       *

It was near the end of the last century, that the idea occurred to a
single man, that the reason he had failed in practice must be that the
medical profession was entirely on the wrong path. He made the effort
to cure diseases on the principle directly opposite to those on which
he had been educated to act, and he was successful. He thought a
reformation of medicine needful and desirable, and proper to be
attempted. He set about it, hoping, if he should succeed in pointing
out a more safe, certain and pleasant road to the life-giving and
life-renewing fountain of health, that it would be a blessing to
suffering humanity. That man was

  SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.

Had the reform inaugurated by him been of an insignificant character,
it might have been accepted by the medical world without controversy.
Had the new path into which he invited the profession been only a
little smoother than the old one and lying right alongside of it, like
that which led the pilgrims from the main high-way into the domains
of the giant, physicians might have been easily lured into it. But the
revolution was a radical one. It contemplated a counter-march such as
the teachers and practitoners of the healing art had never been called
upon to make. It called upon the chiefs of the profession to reverse
the wheels of the ponderous engine, and seek for the long-sought shore
in the opposite direction.

The new doctrine came forth embodied in only three simple words:
"_Similia Similibus Curantur_."

Thus the year 1790 gave birth to the celebrated system of Hahnemann,
which has received from him a Greek title, expressive of its
peculiarities--Hom[oe]opathy, and in opposition to "_Contraria
Contraries Curantur_."--Allopathy.

It is not my purpose to entertain you with a detailed history of
medicine, nor even to notice the successive and conflicting theories
that have arisen from time to time; but simply to show that the
old, or Allopathic system of medicine as practiced till this day
is unworthy of our confidence; that its theory of therapeutics is
irrational and worthless; that there is an absence of any reliable
principle to guide the physicians in the treatment of diseases;
and that the sick are far better off when left to nature, than when
subject to the pernicious system of dosing, while a growing want of
confidence in this system, both in the public mind and the medical
profession, loudly calls for something more rational in its theory and
more successful in its practice.

I shall not ask you to accept my individual opinions in support of
these views, but shall place upon the witness-stand, and give you the
declarations of men who have spent their lives in the practice of this
system--most of them authors and teachers, men living in different
countries, and from the highest ranks of the profession, and who,
if any, should be able to pronounce a eulogy upon this system of
practice.

I introduce to you first BOERHAVE, a man justly illustrious in the
history of medicine, he lived a century before HAHNEMANN, and was for
over forty years Professor at the University at Leiden.

Hear him! He says:

    "If we compare the good which a half dozen true disciples
    of Æsculapius have done since their art began, with the
    evil which the immense number of doctors have inflicted
    upon mankind, we must be satisfied that it would have been
    infinitely better for mankind if medical men had never
    existed."

The celebrated BICHAT of Paris, thus speaks of the therapeutic system
of his day:

    "It is an incoherent assemblage of incoherent opinions; it
    is perhaps, of all the physiological sciences that which best
    shows the caprice of the human mind. What do I say?--It is not
    a science for a methodical mind; it is a shapeless assemblage
    of inexact ideas, of observations often peurile, of deceptive
    remedies and of formula as fastidiously and fantastically
    conceived, as they are tediously arranged."

Then we find the equally celebrated French physician, MAJENDIE,
saying:

    "I hesitate not to declare, no matter how sorely I shall
    wound our vanity, that so gross is our ignorance of the
    physiological disorders called diseases, that it would perhaps
    be better to do nothing, and resign the complaint we are
    called upon to treat to the resources of Nature, than to act
    as we frequently do, without knowing the why and the wherefore
    of our conduct, and at the obvious risk of hastening the end
    of our patient."

DR. GOOD, the great nosologist, asserts that

    "The science of medicine is a barbarous jargon, and the
    effects of our medicines on the human system are in the
    highest degree uncertain; except, indeed, that they have
    already destroyed more lives than war, pestilence and famine
    combined."

SIR ASTLEY COOPER, England's greatest surgeon says:

    "The science of medicine is founded on conjecture and improved
    by murder."

But, it may be said, these men lived in the past, and since their time
the science of medicine has improved and its practice has become more
rational and safe.

       *       *       *       *       *

Let us then come down to a later period, and listen to DR. CHRISTISON,
the present eminent Professor of _Materia Medica_ at the University of
Edinburgh. He says:

    "Of all medical sciences, therapeutics is the most
    unsatisfactory in its present state, and the least advanced
    in progress, and surrounded by the most deceitful sources of
    fallacy."

SIR JOHN FORBES, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians: Physician
to the Queen's Household, late editor of the "British and Foreign
Medical Review," after a frank admission of the imperfections of
Allopathic medicine, says:

    "FIRST. That in a large proportion of the cases treated by
    Allopathic physicians, the disease is cured by Nature and not
    by them."

    "SECOND. That in a lesser, but still not a small proportion,
    the disease is cured in spite of them; in other words, their
    interference opposing instead of assisting the cure."

    "THIRD. That, consequently in a considerable proportion of
    diseases, it would be as well, or better with patients, in
    the actual condition of the medical art, as more generally
    practiced, if all remedies, at least active remedies
    especially drugs were abandoned." And finally adds, "Things
    have arrived at such a pitch that they cannot be worse. They
    must mend or end."

But, I may be asked, what are the views of the Professors and writers
in our own country. Have they no more confidence in the healing art
than their brethren in the old world? Let us see:

DR. RUSH, one of the lights of the profession in his day, remarks:

    "The healing art is an unroofed temple, uncovered at the top
    and cracked at the foundation."

And again:

    "Our want of success results from the following causes:
    FIRST.--Ignorance of the law governing disease. SECOND.--Our
    ignorance of a suitable remedy THIRD.--Want of efficacy in the
    remedy; and finally we have assisted in multiplying disease;
    nay, we have done more: we have increased their mortality."

Professor CHAPMAN, who stood at the head of the profession in
Philadelphia, in an address to the medical society, after speaking of
the pernicious effects of calomel, adds:

    "Gentlemen, it is a disgraceful reproach to the profession
    of medicine; it is quackery, horrid unwaranted murderous
    quackery.... But I will ask another question, who is it that
    can stop the career of mercury at will, after it has taken the
    reins into its own destructive and ungovernable hands? He,
    who for an ordinary cause resigns the fate of his patient to
    mercury is a vile enemy to the sick; and if he is tolerably
    popular, will, in one successful season, have paved the
    way for the business of life, for he has enough to do ever
    afterwards to stop the mercurial breach of the constitutions
    of his dilapidated patients."

And yet, this article of the _Materia Medica_ in some of its various
forms, is still more frequently prescribed than any other by the
allopathic physicians. A writer in the June number, 1868, of the
"London Chemist," having submitted to a careful examination one
thousand prescriptions, taken _seriatim_ from the files of a druggist,
states, among other curious facts, that mercury takes the lead, and
stands prominently at the head of the list. Mercury, the very name of
which strikes terror into the minds of nervous and timid patients, is
still the foremost remedial agent employed by the medical profession.

Professor DRAPER, in one of his introductory lectures, before the
University College of New York, makes the following statement:

    "Even those of us who have most carefully upheld our old
    professional theories, and have tried to keep in reverence the
    old opinions, and the old times, find that under the advance
    of the exact sciences our position is becoming untenable. The
    ground is slipping away from beneath our feet. We are on
    the brink of a great revolution. Go where you will, among
    intelligent physicians you will find a deep, though it may be
    an indistinct perception, that a great change is imminent."

The late Professor MUTTER of Philadelphia, in an introductory lecture
a few years ago, says:

    "We have in truth, rested contented in ideal knowledge. We
    have received as perfect, theories as idle as day dreams.
    We have blindly accepted the follies of the past; and the
    foundation of our art must crumble to the earth unless we
    learn more discretion and better judgment in the selection of
    the material of which they are to be constructed."

I might continue these quotations indefinitely; but I will not weary
you by citing more, and surely, sufficient evidence has already been
produced to sustain the allegation that the old system of medicine is
unworthy of our confidence; that, with no law upon which to base its
principles of treatment, its practice rests upon a chaotic mass of
empirical experiences, groundless theories, and ever-changing fancies;
that those best acquainted with its principles, and the results of
its practice, have the least faith in its usefulness; and that the
interests of the suffering, imperiously demand a revolution in the
method of treating disease, and call for a system more in harmony with
Nature, more reliable in its application, and more successful in its
results.

This degraded state of the medical practice was deeply felt by
HAHNEMANN, and in 1778 he retired from the practice of medicine
in disgust at its uncertainties, after having acquired fame as a
scientific scholar and high standing in his profession, breaking away
from the past and opening a new field of glory to his activities, as
well as a new era of progress in the medical art.

SAMUEL HAHNEMANN was a great man; the discoverer of the true law of
cure, in accordance with the principles and laws of Nature.

I need not tell you, that we maintain that this much-desired and
long-looked-for law of cure, which is to be a lamp to the feet of the
physician, making plain his path, and giving him an unfailing guide
in the application of remedies to the removal of disease, not only
exists, but has been proclaimed to the world by the immortal Hahnemann
in his well-known formula: _Similia Similibus Curantur!_ But who was
Samuel Hahnemann? When I say that this great Reformer of Medicine was
a regularly educated physician of great learning and unusual general
culture and literary attainments, I speak but feeble praise compared
with the language of Sir John Forbes, Hahnemann's most learned critic,
where he says:

    "No candid reader of his writings can hesitate for a moment
    to admit that he was a very extraordinary man; one, whose name
    will descend to posterity as the exclusive excogitator and
    founder of an original system of medicine, as ingenious as
    many that preceded it, and destined to be the remote, if
    not the immediate cause of more fundamental changes in the
    practice of the healing art, than have resulted from any
    promulgated since the days of GALEN himself."

And he adds:

    "He was undoubtedly a man of genius and a scholar, a man of
    indefatigable industry and of dauntless energy."

The great HALLER, says of him:

    "He is a doublehead of philosophy and wisdom."

And HUFELAND, the father of orthodox medicine, speaks of him as one of
the most distinguished physicians in Germany, while the late DR. MOTT
of New York, after having visited HAHNEMANN in Paris, speaks in the
highest terms of his candor, learning and genius.

It has often been stated by close observers of the working of Divine
Providence, that "The darkest hour is just before day," and also, that
"The Creator ever wisely and well provides agents perfectly adapted
to carry out His beneficient designs in the crisis of human affairs."
History, both sacred and profane, gives unwavering and very numerous
evidences of the justice and verity of these propositions. In matters
theological as well as political this is equally the case. When there
could scarcely be greater gloom or greater danger, the wise Arbiter
of human destinies has educated, nerved, inspired and protected some
master-spirit, who has caused light to shine out of darkness, and
peace and order to take the place of chaos and destruction. Never
were these propositions more fully illustrated than in medical matters
towards the close of the past century. All the arts and sciences
had received the impetus of new discoveries. The inductive method of
investigation had brought out clearly to view first principles, on
which it was easy for succeeding generations to build solid, stable
and beautiful temples of truth.

Astronomy, chemistry, botany and every branch in Natural Philosophy,
instead of continuing mere matters of speculative theory, as they were
before, became sciences. The sons of Æsculapius alone were enshrouded
in an Egyptian darkness, wandering about without guide and compass,
rushing wildly to and fro with instruments of deadly power in their
hands; whom they wished to heal, they slew; and tortured those whom
they fondly hoped might find timely relief from sufferings and woes
through their ministrations.

The hearts of the benevolent were deeply pained, and the conscientious
wavered in their work when they gathered statistics of the results
of their labor. A cry ascended heaven-wards from the practitioners of
medicine, the longing for better days, seemed seconded by a phalanx
of ghostly beings, who had untimely passed away by means of fearful
treatment, and by the living miseries of multitudes of shapeless
deformed ones, who ever stood unpleasant and incontrovertible
witnesses of the cruelties and barbarities of the healing art.

With increasing civilization, new and fatal epidemics appeared,
reaping a rich harvest for the grim monster--Death--and adding yearly
to the per-centage of the ever-increasing bills of mortality. Many
an honest practitioner threw away lancet and saddle-bags in despair,
while quacks and medical charlatans, profiting by the wranglings of
the regulars, and the weariness of the people, drove a reckless
but well-paying trade, with nostrums of every character, from the
deadliest poison to the simplest house-hold herb.

BUT A BRIGTHER DAY WAS ABOUT TO DAWN.

In the picturesque town of Meissen, in the district of Cur Saxony,
lived an honest and worthy man, Christian Gottfried Hahnemann, an
intelligent, patriotic and highly esteemed, though unassuming
and unambitious member of that community, by trade a painter upon
porcelain, known under the name of Dresden-China.

On the 10th day of April, 1755, he was made happy by the birth of a
son, whom he named Samuel Christian Frederick. Amidst all the fond
hopes the parents cherished for their new-born babe, little did they
imagine to what a destiny the great Creator had appointed him. Of the
mother of this child not very much is known, save that she was modest,
industrious, intensely attached to her family, full of sympathy
with her children's aspirations, and ever-ready to aid them in their
schemes of pleasure or advancement. The infantile years of little
Hahnemann were spent amidst scenery so strikingly beautiful, as to
impress his young buoyant heart, even in those tender years, with an
admiration of Nature's handiwork, and so instill into him a love of
the works of God, which ever increased as he grew older. He was not
sent to school very young, not until he was eight years old; this will
perhaps partly account for the fact that when he did go, he manifested
an ardent thirst for knowledge, which was never slacked during his
long life-time. But he did not spend his first eight years of life
entirely in play. Those health-securing, physical-exhilarating and
developing exercises were occasionally relieved by lessons from his
father, and sometimes from his mother, in reading and writing, and by
frequent conversations of a religious and moral character.

These conversations laid deep the foundation of that undeviating
integrity, fixedness of purpose, unwavering conscientiousness and
unaffected reverence for the Divine Being, which ever characterized
this Medical Reformer in after life. The influence of this paternal
conversational instruction and moral training made him what he was,
as a school-boy, as a college-student, as an author, a chemist and a
physician. Untiring industry, conscientiousness, and a reliance upon
Divine blessing, will in any sphere in life secure success, and Samuel
Hahnemann was no exception to the general rule. In writing on this
subject, he says: "My father had the soundest ideas on what was to be
considered good and worthy in man, and had arrived at them by his own
independent thought. He sought to plant them in me, and impressed on
me more by actions than by words, the great lesson of life, to act and
to be, not merely to seem! When a good work was going forward, there,
often unobserved, he was sure to be helping, hand to heart; shall I
not do likewise? In the finest distinctions between the noble and the
base, he decided by his actions with a justness that did honor to
the nicety of his sense of right and wrong. In this, too, he was my
monitor."

Such sterling qualities, rooted in the boy's heart, and early budding
out in his life, made him beloved by all who came in contact with him.
Play-mates, school-fellows and instructors not only treated him with
kindness, but with ardent affection.

This school-boy life did not pass, however, without trials, the
greatest of which was the disinclination of his father for him to
continue his studies. It is a little strange that the good man, who
himself possessed a keen power of observation, did not once suspect
the future greatness of his child: but he was very poor, had several
other children to support, and doubtless feared that a thorough
classical and scientific education would give to his son aspirations
that would be doomed to bitter disappointment. His teacher, however,
pleaded on his behalf, offering to remit the usual school-fees, and
he was permitted to continue his studies until he was twenty years
of age. A proof of the poverty of his parents at this time, is
illustrated by the circumstance, that his father complained of the
great consumption of oil during young Hahnemann's preparation of his
lessons, and would not permit him to use the family lamp after the
other members of the household had retired: but Samuel, who was never
daunted by difficulties, or frustrated in a purpose, when he had
concluded that it was legitimate, manufactured a lamp out of a lump of
clay, and successfully coaxed his mother to supply him with oil.

At the close of his high school term, young Hahnemann wrote, as was
usual with those just finishing their course, a treatise. He had
for some time manifested a deep interest in natural science, and
particularly in the branches of chemistry and physiology. He wrote
his thesis in Latin, choosing as his subject, "The wisdom of God in
forming the Human Hand." This was for his age, a work of great merit,
and even his father seemed to have become proud of his abilities, and
gave his free consent for the studious boy to go to Leipzig that he
might attend the lectures at the University, and presented him with
all the money he possibly could spare, amounting to nearly fifteen
dollars in our currency. "This," says Hahnemann, "was the last money
I received from my father." He left his home for Leipzig on Easter,
1775.

He was at first somewhat puzzled by that troublesome subject, "the
ways and means," but fortunately becoming acquainted with two rich
Princes of Greece, who were anxious to be instructed in the English
and French languages. Hahnemann entered into a lucrative engagement
with them as instructor, and also obtained employment as a translator
of medical and philosophical works. The remuneration he received for
private teaching and translating, not only enabled him to supply all
his moderate wants and purchase of books, but he saved a considerable
amount besides. In order to save so much, and at the same time attend
faithfully upon all his classes, he denied himself sleep every other
night. In 1777, we find him attending the hospitals of Vienna where
his excellence of character, and extent of medical information,
completely won him the friendship and confidence of the celebrated
Doctor von Quarin, who perceiving the noble qualities and promising
abilities of the young man, adopted him as a special protégé.
Hahnemann says of him, "To him I owe my claims to be reckoned as a
physician. I had his love and friendship." After this, he visited the
University of Erlangen, where he graduated, receiving the degree
of Doctor of Medicine on the 10th of August, 1779. At this time, an
earnest longing for the air of Saxony and the scenery of his native
district seems to have taken possession of him. After having occupied
several prominent positions, the government offered him the office of
District Physician in Gommern, which he accepted in 1782.

After three years residence in Gommern, during which time he had
married, he became tired of professional idleness--as he expresses
himself--and we find him removing to Dresden. For about a year he
occupied the position as superintendent of the public hospitals of
that city. His conscience however, began to be much troubled by the
conviction that medicine as then practiced proved worse than useless
to the majority of patients. He retired from the practice of medicine
in disgust at its uncertainties, occupying himself solely with
chemistry and literary labor.

       *       *       *       *       *

The humanity and integrity of Hahnemann is plainly portrayed in a
letter to the venerable Hufeland, where he gives his own account of
the reasons which induced him at this time to retire from practice. He
writes:

    "It was painful for me to grope in the dark, guided only by
    our books in the treatment of the sick--to prescribe according
    to this or that fanciful view of the nature of diseases,
    substances that only owed to mere opinion their place in the
    _Materia Medica_. I had conscientious scruples about treating
    unknown morbid states in my suffering fellow-creatures with
    these unknown medicines; which, being powerful substances,
    might, if they were not exactly suitable, (and how could the
    physician know whether they were suitable or not, seeing that
    their peculiar special actions were not yet elucidated?),
    easily change life into death, or produce new affections
    or chronic ailments, which are often much more difficult to
    remove than the original disease. To become in this way a
    murderer, or an aggravator of the sufferings of mankind, was
    to me a fearful thought. So fearful and distressing was it,
    that shortly after my marriage I abandoned the practice, and
    scarcely treated any one for fear of doing him harm."

In 1789, he settled in Leipzig, and numerous writings and
translations, which have been often quoted by the best writers ever
since, came from his pen during that period. We come now to the year
1790, in which the first thought of Hom[oe]opathy issued from the
brain of the great father and founder of the new school of medicine.
It has already been hinted that Hahnemann had felt an intense desire
to obtain some clear, safe and philosophical guide to the therapeutic
action of drugs.

He was called upon to translate "Cullen's Materia Medica," and as he
progressed in the description of one medical substance after another,
he could not but feel a renewal of the earnest longing he had so
often cherished, to clear medical science from the clouds of mist and
uncertainty in which it had continued from the time of Hippocrates.

       *       *       *       *       *

The workings of his mind, and the character of the man, at this time
will be best understood by a quotation from the letter he wrote to
Hufeland, where he says:

    "Having briefly reviewed, the sad experience of the systems
    of Sydenham and Hoffmann, of Boerhave and Glaubius, of Stahl,
    Cullen and de Hean," he continues,

    "But it is, perhaps, the very nature of this art, as great men
    have asserted that it is incapable of attaining any greater
    certainty. Shameful, blasphemous thought! What! shall it be
    said that the infinite wisdom of the Eternal Spirit, that
    animates the universe, could not produce remedies to allay the
    sufferings of the diseases He allows to arise? The all-loving
    paternal goodness of Him, whom no name worthily designates,
    who richly supplies all wants, even the scarcely conceivable
    wants of the insect in the dust, imperceptible by reason of
    its minuteness to the keenest human eye, and who despenses
    throughout creation, life and happiness in rich abundance,
    shall it be said that He is capable of the tyranny of not
    permitting that man, made in his image, should by the efforts
    of his penetrating mind, that has been breathed into him from
    above, find out the way to discover remedies in the stupendous
    kingdom of creation, which should be able to deliver mankind
    from their sufferings, worse than death itself? Shall He, the
    Father of all, behold with indifference the martyrdom of
    his best-beloved creatures by disease, and yet render it
    impossible to the genius of man, to whom all else is possible,
    to find any method, any easy, sure, trust-worthy method,
    whereby they may see diseases from their proper point of view,
    and whereby they may interrogate medicines as to their special
    uses, as to what they are really, surely and positively
    serviceable for? Well, thought I, as there must be a sure and
    trust-worthy method of treatment, as certainly as God is the
    wisest and most beneficient of Beings, I shall seek it no
    longer in the thorny thicket of ontological explanations,...
    nor in the authoritative declarations of celebrated men. No;
    let me seek it where it lies nearest at hand, and where it
    has hitherto been passed over by all, because it did not seem
    sufficiently recondite, nor sufficiently learned, and was
    not hung with laurels for those who displayed most talent
    for constructing systems, for scholastic speculation, and
    transcendental abstractions."

With these high and noble feelings, his mind was fully awake to any
suggestion that might be derived from the material before him.

For forty years he carried on a series of well-planned and
well-calculated experiments to ascertain the disease-producing power
of drugs, when administered to persons in health. Friends, medical and
lay, were brought into requisition, and all possible means taken to
secure the greatest accuracy; for Hahnemann already began to feel that
he was God's agent of mercy, through whose happy discovery and labors
future generations would be greatly blessed.

He found but little opportunity to test his newly-discovered law of
cure while he remained in Leipzig, and poverty compelled him to labor
with his pen most indefatigably, as was evidenced by the large number
of essays and translations published at that time.

Providence, however, interfered in his behalf; the reigning Duke of
Saxe Gotha offered him the position of Physician to the Asylum for the
Insane in Georgenthal, in the Thuringen Forest. He entered upon his
duties in 1792. While at the head of this establishment, he succeeded
in affecting a cure which created some sensation, because the party
concerned was the Hanoverian Minister, Klockenbring, who was rendered
insane by a lampoon written by Kotzebue. He also introduced a mild and
humane treatment for the insane, removing the chains and tight-jacket,
heretofore in use.

In 1810, he published his greatest work, "The Organon," which ran
through five editions, and was translated into most all the living
languages. From 1810 to 1821, we find him again in Leipzig, publishing
his _Materia Medica_, and lecturing twice a week in the University, at
the same time attending to a multitude of patients.

In 1821, Hahnemann was induced by the reigning Duke of Anhalt-Coethen,
who was his warm friend and admirer, to change his place of residence,
and appointed him his Physician. He accepted the position. He
soon began to work as earnestly as before in proving medicines and
prescribing for his patients, who came from all parts of Europe.

On one occasion, during his residence in Coethen, he recieved a
visitor who had heard a great deal of Hahnemann and his garden, and
who had imagined the garden to be as large as its owner was great.
When he was ushered into the presence of the Prophet of Medicine and
found him seated at a table in a summer-house, only a few yards
from the dwelling, he exclaimed: "But where is the garden?" To which
Hahnemann replied, "This is the garden." "Surely," rejoined the
visitor, "Not this narrow patch of ground?" "True, it is very narrow
and very short, but observe its infinite height," said the Sage,
pointing upwards to the blue sky overhead.

The tenth of August, 1829, was a joyful day for the venerable old man,
being the fifteenth anniversary of his obtaining the degree of M. D.
Gratifying and memorable in more than one respect was this day for
him.

I refrain from giving you a full description of this impressive
celebration, lest I should be considered tedious, yet I cannot
thus pass over historical facts, without dwelling upon a few of the
principal features of this gratifying and memorable festivity.

The early morning found assembled a large number of the friends
of Hahnemann, his disciples; deputations from various cities; also
deputations from the Universities of Leipzig, Vienna and Erlangen,
which presented him with the Diploma of Honor. The King of Saxony, the
Duke of Saxe Gotha and many others had sent costly presents from far
and near. His dwelling having been appropriately prepared for the
celebration, and on a table, resembling an altar, adorned with flowers
and entwined with oak leaves, was placed a well executed bust of
Hahnemann.

After Hahnemann was introduced, his bust was crowned with laurels,
amid appropriate addresses and congratulations. With deep emotion, the
venerable old man in heartfelt and affecting words, gave thanks to the
Supreme Being that he had been permitted to make so great a discovery,
and was so favored with a long life, full of bodily and mental vigor.

A year after this important occurrence, the Asiatic Cholera came
marching from the East, for the first time. This aroused the medical
profession in general. Physicians were helpless, and none of them
had ever seen a case of this fearful disease. But Hahnemann, after
learning the symptoms of the disease, advised the mode of treatment
by which the mortality of that terrible scourge was threefold reduced,
and numerous testimonials were published, showing the immense success
of his mode of treatment. In 1831, he lost his partner in life, having
been married forty-nine years and a few months.

About four years after the death of his wife, a most interesting,
intelligent and estimable lady, applied to Hahnemann for advice for
lung and heart disease. It has been humorously stated that though the
lung disease was effectually cured, the trouble of the heart must have
assumed a chronic form, for the fascinating Parisienne seemed deeply
enamored with the great doctor. She was 35 years of age, the daughter
of Louis Jerome Cohier, formerly Minister of Justice and President and
Director of the French Republic, her name was Marie Melanie d'Herville
Cohier. This lady of position and wealth offered her hand to the
octogenarian, which he accepted, and after having divided his
considerable fortune among his children, upon which his young wife
insisted, he was induced by her to pass the rest of his life in Paris,
where he enjoyed a great reputation till his death, which took place
July 2nd, 1843. On the centenary of his birthday in 1855, a statute
was erected to his memory at Leipzig.

       *       *       *       *       *

To complete the picture of this great man, I have to cite from a
letter written by Dr. Jahr in Paris on the fourth of July 1843, where
he says:

    "Hahnemann is dead! In fact, dear friends, our venerable
    father had finished his career. A pulmonary paralysis had set
    him free, after an illness of six weeks, finally liberating
    the great soul from its earthly tenement. To the last moment,
    he was in the possession of his mental faculties.... In the
    commencement of that illness he announced that it would be
    his last, as his body was worn out. At first he prescribed for
    himself, and nearly to the period of his death delivered
    his opinion of the remedies offered him by his wife and
    Dr. Chartran.... When his wife, on account of a fit of
    suffocation, said to him, 'Providence ought to exempt you from
    these sufferings, as you have relieved so many, and endured
    such numerous persecutions,' he replied, '_Me: why me?
    Every one works according to the abilities and powers which
    Providence has bestowed upon him. Superiority or inferiority
    exists only before the tribunal of men, not before that of
    Providence. Providence owes nothing to me, but I am indebted
    to Providence for all._'"

I leave these memorable words, for every one to deduce from them
the natural conclusion, and especially as truly illustrative of
the character of Hahnemann. The grand old man, at 80 years of age,
launched himself upon a new career in the capital of France. In three
years we find him making an income of 200,000 francs a year from his
professional exertions, and giving gratuitous advice to crowds of the
poor.

Year after year his wonderful successes brought him a rapid increase
to even this large income. In his 89th year he died and left a fortune
of 4,000,000 francs, nearly a million of dollars.

Seldom has a man ended his days in so glorious a sunset, or in a surer
hope for the future.

The merit of Hahnemann, and that for which we ought to bless his
name and cherish his memory, is his rejection of theory and the
establishment of the curative art upon the solid foundation of
science. All that was merely speculative he rejected as unsafe, and
sought by pure experiment and objective observation, to find out
Nature's law of cure. Taking nothing for truth that could not be
proved by experiment, he, by careful and untiring observation,
obtained from Nature the answer that _Similia Similibus Curantur_ was
the law of cure, the only scientific law to heal disease.

This science is not wafted to and fro by the winds of opinion and
supposition. It is through its organic unity, as firm and unchanging
as Nature itself. In it all medical men must agree, because the
reign of _supposition_ has been replaced by that of _facts_, and all
animated by the spirit of progress will work actively and earnestly
in promoting science and the art of healing for their own benefit,
and that of suffering humanity in general. To get such a science
recognized and spread over the world, is undoubtedly a noble problem
of the age. Hahnemann also discovered by experiment and pure objective
observation, that disease renders the organization wonderfully
sensitive to their specific remedies, so that the mere smell of the
specific drug can, in many cases effect a cure; and that in all cases,
a very small dose of the true remedy is all that is required; so small
as to have no effect whatever on the organism in a state of health;
and further, that large doses, even of the proper remedy, are not only
useless, but hurtful, being calculated to aggravate the disease and
endanger vitality.

Time will not permit me to attempt here an elucidation of the
principles and doctrines promulgated by Hahnemann; yet I wish to
notice briefly some of the results following the introduction of
Hom[oe]opathy into the medical world. It is now about seventy-five
years since Hahnemann made public, and taught this new system of
medicine. The bold reformer and his disciples were persecuted,
ridiculed and scorned in every manner by the so-called orthodox
doctors, who declared their principles so ridiculous and nonsensical,
that it would be below the dignity of a scientific man to make
himself acquainted with the laws and practice of Hom[oe]opathy. But
Hom[oe]opathy in the theoretical and practical proofs of its universal
importance, deserves to be ranked among the most important discoveries
of the age, and as one of the most beneficial discoveries that
humanity has ever been blessed with.

Men of the highest standing in the profession have given their
unqualified indorsement of its foundation as an indisputable law
of Nature, and of its right to be considered high in the order of
science.

The truth of its principles has been practically proven by its
success, not only in isolated cases, but in great epidemics, as those
of dysentery, cholera, yellow fever, typhus, smallpox, scarlet fever,
measles, diptheria, etc.; and this, too, in so conspicuous a manner,
that year after year, it has forced its way into larger and higher
circles, and is now practiced in all countries by a large number of
scientific and intelligent physicians, who, after having studied and
practiced for a longer or shorter length of time the murderous system
of Allopathy, are acquainted with both, and have given the preference
to Hom[oe]opathy, only after mature reflection, investigation and
numerous comparisons of the result of both systems in their practice.

The great majority of Old-School physicians, only know Hom[oe]opathy
by hearsay, and look upon it through the dim glasses of the prejudices
of the past. None of those who have abused Hom[oe]opathy have
previously examined and studied the matter thoroughly, because all
those who have conscientiously done this, have soon been converted to
the truth of the system and have adopted its practice.

In the ranks of the practitioners and believers in Hom[oe]opathy, we
see physicians whose writings prove, and to whom nobody can deny
an extended and profound medical knowledge, as well as judgment.
Hom[oe]opathy can boast of a rich and scientific literature, and
a great number of profound writings in all the languages of the
civilized world.

Hom[oe]opathy is a vast and steadily growing power in the medical
and scientific world, demanding earnestly the attention of every
intelligent man. Its real merit may be partially measured by the
strength of obstacles it has had to overcome.

Hom[oe]opathy is a reform in the central and main field of medical
practice, a reform effected by the discovery of a great and true
therapeutic law, and by the construction of a new _Materia Medica_,
which reveals to us the disease-producing properties of drugs. It has
rendered pathology the highest service by making that great branch of
medical science truly practical; for, an exact parallel functional and
organic law between the phenomena of diseases and drugs is necessary
to the scientific selection of hom[oe]opathic medicines. By its
great therapeutic law, it has introduced new light, order, beauty
and efficiency into the theory and practice of medicine. It has cured
thousands of cases of chronic disease, beyond the reach of allopathic
art, and has treated all acute diseases with admirable ease and
success. In great epidemics, it proved always superior to the old
system. I was converted by experiencing the wonderful effects of
hom[oe]opathic medicine on myself, but particularly by witnessing the
triumphs of Hom[oe]opathy in the treatment of the Asiatic cholera, in
the terrible epidemic of 1849-'50 and '51.

  Allopathic mortality was            56 per c.
  Hom[oe]opathic mortality was        12 per c.

In yellow fever, its success was equally surprising. Drs. Davis and
Holcombe treated over a thousand cases at Natchez in 1853 and '55,
with a mortality of 7 per cent. Allopathy lost two-thirds of its
patients. On account of this great victory, they were elected
physicians and surgeons of the Mississippi State Hospital, which
was till then under allopathic government. The reports from that
Institution are triumphs to Hom[oe]opathy up to the present day, and
confirmatory of the superiority of this system of medical treatment.

Hom[oe]opathy has saved thousands of cases from surgical operations,
and has introduced safety into the lying-in-room of woman. It has been
a blessing to children, and to mothers incalculably beneficial. It
has been found equally useful in the diseases of animals, and many
veterinary institutions have been established for its practice.

Finally, it has shortened the average duration of disease, diminished
the expense of treatment enormously, economized the vital resources of
the patient, and delivered its friends from the frequently baneful and
long-lasting effects of enormous doses of medicine.

In conclusion, I will give a few statistics, from different and
reliable authorities; but first, the testimony of Dr. Routh, an
eminent Allopathic physician of London, given under circumstances
which make it significant and interesting.

In 1852, Dr. Routh published in London a book which he entitled the
"Fallacies of Hom[oe]opathy," which he says he was constrained to do,
because

    "This system of medical practice has of late unfortunately
    made, and continues to make, such progress in this country,
    and the metropolis in particular, and is daily extending its
    influence even among the most learned, and those whose high
    positions in society gives them no little moral power over the
    opinions of the multitude, that our profession is, I think,
    bound to make it the subject of inquiry and investigation."

To that end, he collected statistics of different hospitals, to the
number of thirty-two thousand six hundred and fifty cases, treated in
hom[oe]opathic hospitals, and compared them with an equal number of
cases from old-school hospitals. He was astonished to find that the
average mortality under allopathic treatment was 10.5 per c.; while
under hom[oe]opathic treatment it was only 4.4 per c. Still he
was honest enough to publish the results. He further states that,
proportionally to the number of beds, in hom[oe]opathic hospitals
there are twice as many patients admitted and cured, as in allopathic
hospitals.

He also states that the mean duration of treatment in pneumonia was

  Hom[oe]opathic,      11-2/3 days.
  Allopathic,          29 days.

After visiting Vienna, Dr. Routh gives the following statistics
of cases of inflammation of the lungs, treated respectively in the
Hom[oe]opathic and Allopathic Hospitals of that city.

  Allopathic mortality           23 per c.
  Hom[oe]opathic mortality        5 per c.

Here, then, is allopathic testimony, the most conclusive; that, in
this fatal disease, the old system involves a mortality of 23 per c.,
while that of Hom[oe]opathy is only 5 per c.--just about one-fifth!

I have in my possession, and could adduce here, numerous equally
valuable statistics, but as I have already trespassed upon your time,
I will sum up the whole in a carefully prepared table of several life
insurance companies which have investigated the influence of medical
treatment as affecting human life, and from which they feel
authorized in offering an annual reduction of 15 per c. to practical
hom[oe]opathists. We find the "Atlantic Mutual" making the following
deductions:

    _First._ "That practical Hom[oe]opathists enjoy more robust
    health."

    _Second._ "That they are less frequently attacked by disease."

    _Third._ "When attacked, they recover more rapidly than those
    treated by any other system."

    _Fourth._ "That the mortality in the more fatal forms
    of disease is small compared with that under Allopathic
    treatment."

    _Fifth._ "That many diseases, which are incurable under any
    other system, are curable under Hom[oe]opathic treatment."

This statement is followed by a general summary from carefully
prepared tables, comprising a large mass of statistics, collected from
all parts of the world, and embracing the records of the treatment
of some 300,000 cases of disease. We find that the ratio of mortality
between Hom[oe]opathic and Allopathic treatment, omitting the
fractions, to be,--

  In General diseases                        as  4 to 13
   "  Cholera,                               as 16 to 49
   "  Typhus fever,                          as  8 to 33
   "  Yellow fever,                          as  5 to 43
   "  Pneumonia,                             as  5 to 31

The general average of all diseases being as 8 to 34, while the
average length of sickness under the two systems, is as 2 to 3, a
clear gain of over fifty per c. is shown in favor of Hom[oe]opathy.

The inquiry will here naturally arise:--Why is it that, if the
Hom[oe]opathic system presents such superior results, that it has not
been adopted by the profession generally? While its adherents may with
pride refer to its rapid growth in this country, its practitioners
having increased from 6 in 1830 to over 6,000 in 1871; yet, if the
system is all that its adherents claim, why should it still meet with
the most bitter opposition of the old school, instead of that hearty
acceptance which its merits would seem to demand?

Before answering this question, let us see how the medical profession,
and professors of other branches of science have received the several
great discoveries of the last four hundred years.

Copernicus, who taught that the sun is stationary; that the planets
revolve around the sun, and that the apparent revolution of the
heavens is caused by the rotation of the earth on its axis,--a system
now generally received and acknowledged, was persecuted nearly to
death. I found, only twenty years ago, a sect of people in Wisconsin,
who still disbelieved this great fact, that the earth moves around the
sun.

Gallileo, after being converted to the Copernican theory of the
revolution of the earth around the sun, and after having improved the
telescope of Copernicus, invited his fellow-professors to make these
observations with him. They absolutely refused to even look through
Gallileo's telescope, and after he had demonstrated to them by actual
experiment, that the trifling difference in the falling of two unequal
weights is owing only to the resistance of the air, and after making
the experiment twice before the eyes of his opposers in dropping two
unequal weights from the tower of Pisa, they did not believe it. He
also was persecuted through life.

Franklin's electric experiments were received in like manner. After
they had been read before the Royal Society, they were considered
worthless, and he earned nothing but ridicule and abuse.

So it was with Fulton, when he was moving upon the Hudson River with
his imperfect steamcraft before the eyes of the people; they said it
was impossible, and could not be done. Yes, they denied the fact, and
declared him insane after he had done it.

Harvey, who discovered and taught that there is an arterial
circulation of blood through the human system, was persecuted through
life, his professional enemies styling him the "Circulator," a word,
in its original Latin, synifying vagabond or quack.

In the light of these facts, it was not surprising that Hahnemann,
after the promulgation of his doctrine, meets the same fate, and
from that day to the present, the most bitter denunciations have
been poured by the Old School, not only upon him, but on all who have
adopted, or have investigated his method.

But Time ever rectifies the mistakes of mankind. The value of the
discoveries of all these great men has long since been acknowledged
by the world; and the day will and must surely arrive, when the little
acorn of Truth, planted by Hahnemann, which has already taken deep
root, and is lifting high its vigorous stem, shall tower far above all
other giants of the medical forest, and its wide-spreading branches
cast their beneficent shadows over the whole earth.

  F. HILLER, M. D.

  SAN FRANCISCO, April 10th, 1872.




"HOM[oe]OPATHY AND REGULAR MEDICINE."


The editor of the _Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal_ (old school)
had a sudden spasm of good sense--a condition none too frequent with
our Allopathic brethren, and during the attack, allowed the following
communication to appear in the pages of his journal.

_To the Editor of the Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal_:

    It will be to the advantage of the regular medical profession
    to go carefully over their treatment of the class of
    physicians who have seen fit to denominate themselves
    hom[oe]opathic, and to observe the effect such treatment
    has had upon the profession itself, upon the public and upon
    hom[oe]opathy.

    That the accumulated experience of faithful observers, who,
    for the last four thousand years have given their lives to
    the study and treatment of diseases, is, we believe, of almost
    invaluable importance to one who wishes to become a physician,
    and certainly is of infinite importance when compared with
    a hypothetical dogma, and yet, with all the machinery of
    our hospitals and dispensaries, the control of every medical
    appointment in the gift of governments or corporations, with
    our medical schools perfectly equipped with professors for
    every separate department of medicine, and an entire monopoly
    of the advantages of clinical observations, with all these
    advantages and precedents, what headway have we made in
    convincing the public and individuals of our superior ability
    to manage disease, or of our peculiar fitness for becoming the
    sanitary officers of households or communities?

    The line of treatment which the regular profession saw fit to
    adopt in the earliest days of hom[oe]opathy, and which they
    are still following, is generally bigoted, and universally
    intolerant opposition. What is the effect of this opposition?
    It is to arouse in the public mind that generous American
    sentiment which ever asserts itself to see fair play between
    a big boy and a little one. There is scarcely an instance
    in which the regular profession, with all its accumulated
    prestige, has arrayed itself against hom[oe]opathy, where the
    weaker party have not prevailed. And to-day, in the sight of
    the law, and in the confidence of the people, hom[oe]opathy is
    the peer of regular medicine.

    It becomes us to go over this case, and, if possible, discover
    why, we so strong in numbers, and in all the facilities and
    appliances for illustrating and inforcing our tenets, are so
    repeatedly beaten? Why is it that individuals and corporations
    are becoming convinced that their interests require them to
    employ hom[oe]opathic in preference to regular physicians? For
    myself, in spite of the logic of events, I still believe,
    and my belief is founded upon a thorough investigation of
    the principles of hom[oe]opathy, and observations upon the
    practice of many of its most distinguished disciples, that
    in no way can a man so efficiently equip himself for the
    responsibility of the management of disease, and the custody
    of health as in the study of regular medicine.

    If we take it for granted that the past experience and
    observations of physicians are of service to physicians at
    present, and I do not think we will be charged with assumption
    for considering this an axiom; then why is it that a sect
    which disregards all traditions of medicine, and found their
    system upon a dogma which contradicts all that we have held as
    truth, why is it that they are flourishing and we are going to
    the wall?

    The answer to this question presents itself to my mind under
    two heads, which may be formularized as follows: Hom[oe]opathy
    lives upon the disgrace brought upon the profession of
    medicine by the low standard of medical education, and
    flourishes upon the intolerant opposition it has received at
    the hands of regular physicians.

    It is with the second, the lesser of the two evils I propose
    to deal at this time.

    The treatment of hom[oe]opathy by the regular profession
    in past years is so well known as to require no mention,
    therefore let us turn our attention to the present, and by
    reading its signs in the light of the past, endeavor to do
    something for our future.

    The position of the regular profession in regard to
    hom[oe]opathy may be expressed in a few words. We are not
    aware of their existence. They have no professional rights
    which we are bound to respect, and when forced by some
    laymen to speak upon the subject, or give an opinion upon
    hom[oe]opathy, the opinion is that it is a "humbug." This line
    of treatment was bad enough when hom[oe]opathy was young, but
    now when we stand on equal footing before the law, and nearly
    equal before the public, it is suicidal.

    It may be well to explain what I mean by equal rights
    before the law. All the rights which members of the regular
    profession of this State enjoy are granted them by Acts of
    Legislature, the first of which was passed April 10th, 1813,
    this and the Act of 1827, contain the "Regulations concerning
    the Practice of Physic and Surgery in this State." They
    provide for the establishment of County Medical Societies,
    "the only organization existing under law for the purpose of
    diffusing true science and knowledge of the healing art," and
    otherwise point out and fix the duties, responsibilities and
    immunities of physicians and surgeons.

    On April 13th, 1857, the Legislature of this State admitted
    the hom[oe]opathic profession to all the rights and privileges
    enjoyed by members of the regular profession under the above
    mentioned Acts. This provided for the present, and in the
    Acts incorporating their colleges, exactly the same power is
    granted to them as had been granted to our medical schools,
    which provides for the future. I doubt not there are members
    of our profession who have hitherto failed to realize the
    change wrought in the hom[oe]opathic profession by the Acts
    of 1857. As before stated, the Act admitted the hom[oe]opathic
    profession to all the rights and privileges as physicians
    and surgeons under the Acts of 1813 and 1827, and all Acts
    amendatory thereof, thus they became "legally authorized
    practicing physicians and surgeons," and as such, are entitled
    to membership of our County Medical Societies. This right
    is positive, and no County Society has the power to adopt
    a by-law which will keep them out if they should make
    application for admission. The right of legally authorizing
    physicians to membership of County Medical Societies has been
    most definitely settled by our courts, and the proceedings to
    obtain such rights are well understood by many of our members.

    In view of these facts what should the regular profession
    do in the matter? Shall we continue to call ourselves "the
    profession," and neither by public act or private word allow
    that there is any other? Shall we continue a line of treatment
    condemned by law and by experience, treatment which only makes
    hom[oe]opathy notorious and ourselves disgraceful; or shall
    we submit gracefully to the laws of the State, and public
    opinion, and proffer to the hom[oe]opathic profession those
    amenities which should exist between professional equals?
    Invite them to the rights in our County Medical Societies,
    when called by their patrons, attend with them in
    consultation; when wished by our patients ask them to attend
    in consultation with us? If they have any superior knowledge
    in the management of the disease or the protection of health,
    our duty to our patrons requires us to avail ourselves of that
    knowledge. If we possess the greater professional ability,
    they and their patrons will find it out. If we hold back
    from this, we may reasonably be charged with having little
    confidence in our doctrines. If we go into it, I rest my faith
    upon "the survival of the fittest."

  Buffalo, August, 1871.
  H. R. HOPKINS, M. D.




