“PROFESSIONAL ATMOSPHERE AND MORALS; OR, PATENTS AND 
SEERETS VS. A LIBERAL PROFESSION.” 
YL EEPLV 
By JOHH J. R. PATRICK, D. D. S„ Belleville, III . “PROFESSIONAL ATMOSPHERE AND MORALS; OR, 
PATENTS and SECRETS VS. A LIBERAL 
PROFESSION.” 
JOHN J. R. PATRICK, D.D.S., BELLEVILLE, ILL. 
At a late meeting of'tbe'Qdontological Society, of New York, 
Dr. Horatio C. Meriam, of the Harvard College of Dental Sur- 
gery, read a paper on “ Dental Ethics,” in which he assumed that 
the dental profession was below the standard required by the 
medical profession ; that the dental profession has fallen into the 
hands of men who seek to prostitute the profession to their own 
selfish ends. 
Dr. Meriam throws his accusations in a mass at the great body 
of the profession, without discrimination. Had Dr. Meriam 
stood alone in making these charges, they might have been dis- 
regarded and left to the hand of time for correction; but in 
order to give them additional weight, he invokes the aid of a 
poet, a few professors of medicine, an ecclesiastic, two philoso- 
phers, a few lawyers, and several respected members of the den- 
tal profession. 
Had the gentlemen whom Dr. Meriam called to his aid fully 
understood the character and import of his essay, it is fair to 
presume they would not have lent their names to such a mass of 
ill-advised censures. The utterances of Dr. Meriam have gained 
an astounding and disproportionate echo as they now stand before 
the public, connected as he is with a time-honored institution of 
learning. I propose to examine a few of his statements wTith a 
view of finding out how far he is entitled to the position of censor 
over the inventive talent of the dental profession. 
There are many abuses connected with the management of 
patent-rights that are used by the dental profession, which are 
more glaring than those connected with copyrights, trade marks, 
or property-rights; but these fights are all as legal and as just as a diploma. They are simply an authorization to an individual 
to perform and dispense benefits to his fellow man, and when 
any of these legal rights are used as instruments of oppression, 
they should be met intelligently, promptly, and with unanimity ; 
but to make indiscriminate warfare on all patentees, is little 
less than anarchy masquerading in the robes of a professor of 
ethics. 
Dr. Meriam must be aware that every text-book used in Har- 
vard, and all other institutions of learning, are covered with 
copyrights ; and where the professors have written the books, 
they draw a revenue from their publishers, besides their salaries, 
and the students who use the books, pay the publishers, the 
authors, and the teachers ; which, being interpreted from an 
ethical standpoint, means “a pledge to learn for all, a pledge to 
practice for all, and a pledge to teach freely for all. And these 
three form the foundation of the three liberal professions. A 
student in law, medicine, or theology, pays liberally for the 
instruction he receives, for the material he uses, and for the 
comforts and conveniences incident to college life ; and when he 
at last goes out into the wrorld to practice what ho has acquired 
through a number of years, he very justly expects to receive a 
liberal reward for the benefits he is able to confer; and this is 
the perquisite of a liberal profession. 
Discoveries in anatomy or physiology are not patentable, but 
by publishing them they can be copyrighted, which answers the 
same purpose ; and if the copyright does not pay, it is for the 
want of readers, and not for a want or desire on the part of the 
author or publisher to profit by it. Nearly all the new and valu- 
able remedies and remedial agents used by the medical profes- 
sion are covered by trade marks, patents, and proprietary rights ; 
and some of them nostrums, because they are secret. Instance 
the following: antipyrine, antifebrine, listerine, celerina, salol, 
sulphonal, Syr. hypophosphites, troba, tongaline, paromidia, 
bromidies, fucus marina, bromo cafieina, citrate lithia, gyneecian, 
chairs, papiur, splints, suspensories, atomizers, syringes, some 
instruments, and many other useful things used by the pro- 
fession. 3 
Noav, a patented article, whether a compound or an instrument, 
does not come under the head of nostrum. A patent is open to 
all; it is no secret; and the government gives to the inventor an 
exclusive right to make and sell, for a term of years, as a recom- 
pense for the labor and expense incurred by the inventor, and at 
the expiration of the time specified, the article or compound 
becomes the property of the people. 
By the publication of the mode of manufacture, either of 
machinery or the compounds used in medicine or the useful arts, 
governments secure for the many the material manifestations of 
the brain-work of the few ; and it is with this object in view 
that every civilized nation has adopted a system of patents. No 
civilized nation can afford to neglect the inventive genius of her 
children; for the cultivation of such genius is sure to end in the 
enrichment of the many. It is safe to say that mankind were 
not properly fed until the mechanic turned his attention to the 
Avants of the agriculturist, and the government encouraged every 
original and improved creation of the mechanic’s brain, and, by 
this happy combination, our agricultural interests have increased 
a thousand fold. With this great increase in the production of 
the necessaries of life, everything pertaining to the Avelfare of 
man has advanced with equal paceand the liberal professions 
form no exception to the rule in the benefits derived from this 
original source. 
“From the stomach comes the dance,” is an old Spanish 
proverb it may not be Emersonian or Baconian, and may be 
repugnant to the feelings of a man who belongs to a liberal pro- 
fession, but it is nevertheless true ; if a member of a liberal pro- 
fession doubts the truth of this, let him practice in a community 
that has no surplus, and he will soon realize that liberal actions 
are not so much to be admired when Ave know all the motives 
from which they spring. 
Under the head “Of the duties of physicians to each other 
and the profession at large,” in the code of medical ethics rec- 
ommended by the American Medical Association, held in the city 
of Philadelphia, in the month of May, 1847, section 4 states 
that it is “equally derogatory to professional character for a 4 
physician to hold a patent for any surgical instrument or medi- 
cine ; or to dispense a secret nostrum, whether it be the composi- 
tion or exclusive property of himself or others.” So, according 
to this rule, if a physician by superior knowledge, close observa- 
tion and skill in chemical manipulation, discovers a method of 
obtaining the active principles from crude material, and by his 
keen perception of the character of disease is enabled to counter- 
act its baneful influence by his discovered remedy, and consents 
to accept the government’s proposition to publish it to the 
world, receiving the government’s protection for a few years as 
a reward, he, for this agreement with the government, accord- 
ing to section 4, must be kicked out of a medical society. 
Happily, section 4 has never been enforced, except in flagrant 
cases of charlatanism. I have been an honorary member of two 
medical societies for nearly twenty-seven years, and during that 
period only four cases for unprofessional conduct appear on the 
records of these two societies. Three out of the four were not 
sustained, and in none of them were the charges preferred for 
using proprietary or trade-marked remedies; yet, it was patent 
to the eye of everyone connected in any manner with the profes- 
sion, that these proprietary and trade-marked remedies were in 
constant use; for, like good physicians, they used anything and 
everything that would alleviate the sufferings of their fellow 
man, without consulting the code of ethics to see if the remedy 
conformed to the rule laid down in section 4. 
The section referred to in the codo of ethics denounces a prop- 
erty or patent-right, and holds it derogatory to professional 
character to either hold a patent on an instrument, or dispense a 
remedy that is protected by law: the result is that many physi- 
cians have become pharmaceutical chemists, or have become 
connected with drug houses, either directly or indirectly; 
directly, by becoming part owners, and indirectly, by furnishing 
formulas which are trade-marked or patented by the drug houses 
and sold to the medical profession through their local druggists. 
These remedies, prepared by competent men and made public 
through the patent office, are better, being more uniform and 
reliable in their character, than if they had been compounded by their local druggist from crude material, with limited means for 
manipulation. Who would, to-day, take a bowl full of peruvian 
bark tea in order to obtain the effects of a few grains of quinine ? 
yet, a decoction of cinchona was the dose in common use when 
section 4 of the code was adopted. 
It is not necessary, to-day, for a physician to patent a valuable 
remedy in order to reap the pecuniary benefits he may feel him- 
self entitled to. All that is necessary for him to do is to turn 
his discovery or invention over to a manufacturing chemist, and 
the chemist will cover it with a trade mark and divide the profits. 
A trade mark can cover a secret remedy: it endures for thirty 
years, and can be renewed for thirty years more. 
How can a physician use these exclusive or secret compounds 
of the manufacturing chemist and support section 4 of the code 
of ethics which says, “or to dispense a secret nostrum, whether 
it be the composition or exclusive property of himself or others?” 
But how much worse is it, from a moral point of view, for a 
man to use these forbidden patent and “secret” nostrums, and 
then denounce the authors of them ! “To consecrate the copy 
and excommunicate the original; to idolize the golden image 
and spit at Nebuchadnezzar,” is, to say the least, a very slippery 
species of righteousness. 
About the time the code of ethics was adopted in Philadelphia, 
I was a student in medicine and received instruction from the 
lectures of professors, each one occupying a special chair and 
giving instructions on special subjects; yet, each professor dur- 
ing the lecture season, seldom failed to denounce specialists in 
the practice of medicine or surgery. This may appear inconsist- 
ent, now that we have laws governing the practice of medicine, 
but at the time I speak of, better advice could not have been 
given by the professors to the students ; for the country was full 
of advertising quacks and charlatans. 
To show the antipathy of the medical profession to specialists, 
an incident which came under my own observation will serve: 
A gentleman who had graduated with honor in a reputable school 
of medicine, concluded to further improve himself by attending 
a course of lectures at the college of the Bellevue Hospital; 6 
completing his course in this institution, he returned to his home 
and commenced the practice of the specialty for which he had 
made ample preparation; his name was presented to the county 
medical society for membership, but was rejected for the reason 
that he was a specialist—this was in 1866. The world moves; 
things have changed; sections have been formed in all medical 
societies for the accommodation of specialists; and finally, like 
the last man in a procession, dental and oral surgery has found a 
place. 
Dr. Meriam says that he “read with shame and professional 
humiliation of a teacher who makes an appliance of a secret 
material, patented.” I will here again remind the doctor that 
secret and patent are contradictory terms, a solecism : a nos- 
trum is secret, a patent public. The age in which we live is an 
age of investigation and invention, and nothing is acceptable at 
the patent office, or patentable, but which is of a moral and ser- 
viceable character. I am not aware that explosive bullets were 
patented, as the doctor states, but I am aware that they were a 
very useless projectile in our late war, and the use of them in 
civilized warfare (if warfare can be so called) proved them a fail- 
ure; and the object of war is to destroy life, and the quicker and 
greater the destruction, the quicker the dispute is settled. 
The doctor further states, that “ according to Blackstone, the 
government grants a patent in return for such information as, 
placed on record, will enable others to construct or use the article 
or process after the period for which its exclusive use was 
granted has expired; in this way overcoming the tendency of 
mean natures to conceal information or withhold knowledge from 
others.” These are not the words of Sir Wm. Blackstone, but 
the words of Dr. Meriam; and it would be interesting to know 
how many “mean natures” Dr. Meriam was indebted to for 
the means of transportation from Boston to New York. Black- 
stone speaks of the infamous monopolies as offenses, in which the 
subject in general was restrained from the liberty of manufactur- 
ing and trading, during the buccaneering age of Bacon and 
Elizabeth. These infamous monopolies were repealed in the 
reign of James the First; but patents, granted to authors of new 
inventions, were retained. Dr. Meriam seems to be ignorant of the fact that special tools 
and instruments require special tools to make them, and these 
tools to make tools, require skillful workmen. I have a small 
tool, that now appears very simple, that has cost me more trouble, 
time and thought to perfect, than can ever be realized by anyone 
but myself. This one tool, with the aid of a skillful mechanic, 
has cost me in money some eighty odd dollars. I expect, with 
the aid of special machinery, to place it in the hands of the pro- 
fession, when made in quantities, for six or eight dollars ; much 
less than a single one could be made for by an expert. Dr. 
Meriam shall have the privilege at any time to take this tool to 
the workman of his choice and have one made for his own use ; 
1 own the patent, but will waive all rights in favor of any mem- 
ber of our profession who may feel desirous of having a little 
practical experience in having single instruments or tools made 
by expert workmen. 
The doctor speaks of Alvin Clark, in connection with mathe- 
matical instrument makers. Now, Alvin Clark was not a mathe- 
matical instrument maker ; he left his farm when forty years old 
and became an amateur in the production of lenses, and by a 
patent from his creator, a diploma that is beyond the power of 
colleges to bestow, he produced the best defining lenses in exist- 
ence. Of course, telescopes are not patentable articles, and if 
they were, the paucity of their demand would render a patent 
superfluous. Most mathematical instruments were in existence 
long before patent laws, but if Dr. Meriam will call at Queen’s, 
in Philadelphia, or Frost & Adams’, in Boston, and examine the 
many accessories to the microscope and telescope, and all other 
instruments, he will find all those that are in demand, that are 
patentable, are patented. 
What we most need at the present time, is for some one of the 
dental profession, well versed in ethics, to produce some one 
valuable and useful tool—a dental chair, engine, automatic ham- 
mer, for instance, that will be superior to any now in use ; or a 
compound that will be equal or superior to gold, that will take 
the place of gold or any of the plastics now in use for filling 
teeth, and that will be susceptible of protection by a patent, and 8 
then, after much trouble and expense in its production, give it to 
the profession, free. But alas, until such a combination of 
talents and generosity are found in one individual, we must be 
content to receive lectures on ethics from one source, while we 
get useful appliances and instruments from another; and so long 
as this is the case, there will be a difference of opinions as well 
as interests. 
[to be continued.] 9 
[Reprint from Archives oe Dentistry, September, 1S89.] 
PART II. 
Whenever a man volunteers himself as a witness against his 
confreres by impugning the motives of their professional con- 
duct, railing at their selfishness and disregard of a clause in the 
code of medical ethics, stigmatizing the use or obtaining of 
patents, and denouncing all personal considerations in the prac- 
tice of a liberal profession as little less than criminal, he holds 
himself as guiltless in all these things ; he puts on the robes of 
self-righteousness, and for every imputation he casts upon others, 
he says, in effect, behold, ‘ ‘ I am holier than thou. ” 
Owing to the zeal and untiring energy of a few honored mem- 
bers of our own profession, assisted by several prominent mem- 
bers of the medical profession, dentistry was received into the 
rank and file of the medical profession with other specialties. 
This long-earned recognition of so recent date is now called in 
question by Dr. Meriam, who steps out from the ranks, a self- 
appointed non-commissioned officer and orders the profession to 
a front face for inspection, and asks the question: ‘ ‘ Has the 
dental profession of to-day the morals and atmosphere that 
entitle her to be called a liberal, free, learned, or scientific pro- 
fession, and to rank with divinity, law and medicine ? ” 
This question of Dr. Meriam’s was answered in the affirmative 
at the Ninth International Medical Congress, held in the city of 
Washington, D. C., in the month of September, 1887 ; and that 
congress of medical men settled the question of Dr. Meriam for- 
ever, when they published the papers read in the Dental Section 
in the transactions of the congress; and while this question was 
being asked by Dr. Meriam, at the Odontological Society of 
New York, a Hamburg steamer was bringing tidings to the den- 
tal profession of this country from Prof. Busch, of Berlin, that 
the Tenth International Medical Congress, which is to convene 
in that city, had indorsed the action of the Ninth Medical Con- 
gress, by making preparations to receive the dental profession 
into full fellowship. 
In the face of this high authority, that dentistry is a specialty of medicine, Dr. Meriam, in his anxiety to breathe a higher and 
purer professional atmosphere, questions the wisdom of the 
International Medical Congress when it created the Section of Den- 
tal and Oral Surgery. The doctor sees only a gnat in the Tooth 
Crown Company, which, like the Rubber Company, was organized 
by rapacious speculators, unconnected with the dental profession, 
and discovers a camel in the ‘ ‘ patented articles and secret materi- 
als ” that are used by the profession. I am not aware of any 
secret materials in use by the dental profession, and if there are 
any, the dispenser is as much to be censured as the vender. 
Dr. Meriam, throughout his whole essay, appears to be inca- 
pable of drawing a distinction between a tool or piece of machin- 
ery, patented for the purpose of being manufactured in quantity, 
which afterwards becomes free to all to purchase and to use, and 
that species of patent that demands an annual royalty, together 
with a percentage of the fees earned by the operator by his own 
skill in operating in a certain direction. The doctor loses sight 
of one important factor in the production of instruments—tools 
and machinery. Such articles were never properly made until 
machinery made them. Tools and machinery made in this man- 
ner, become articles of commerce, and are made better and are 
sold cheaper than it would be possible if they were made in any 
other manner; and the fact of such tools and machinery being 
patented, does not prevent their being improved by any person, 
as the doctor seems to think. On the contrary, improvements 
are always in order at the patent office, and patents are issued 
for improvements as well as for original inventions. 
As bright examples of professional men, the doctor calls atten- 
tion to the methods of Professors Agassiz, Huxley, Darwin, and 
others, and hops from one to the other like a bird at the close of 
day seeking a perch. But these gentlemen were not inventors ; 
they were, and are, investigators of nature—interrogators of 
nature in their own special fields of inquiry. Prof. Agassiz 
would not have refused to use a reel and hook in fishing, because 
they were patented ; neither would Prof. Huxley reject an ani- 
malcule cage or turning table, because the word patent was 
stamped upon them ; and the reason they would not refuse these 11 
auxiliaries prepared for their use, is because they are leaders in 
liberal professions. 
Liberality is not a one-sided virtue. To be an upright mem- 
ber of a liberal profession, one must give as well as receive ; 
must learn as well as teach. Now, there are men of science 
whose natural tendencies lead them in the line of invention; they 
are also interrogators of nature. Such an one was Samuel Fin- 
ley Breese Morse, A.M., L.L.D., a graduate of Yale, and the 
inventor of the electro-magnetic telegraph, which he patented. 
He became a Fellow of many scientific societies, and was honored 
by mankind in every portion of the civilized world. Among the 
many series of electric inventions given to the world within the 
last few years, there are none more marvelous, more prominent, 
or more useful than those of Prof. Graham Bell, Gray, and Edi- 
son ; and these eminent physicists patented their inventions, and 
there are no liberal minded persons, either in or out of the liberal 
professions, that object to it. 
Dr. Meriam must remember that Agassiz, Huxley, Darwin, 
Draper, Dalton, Carpenter, Dunglison, Flint, and all other 
writers on medical and scientific subjects, copyrighted their 
works, or let their publishers do it for them. Dr. Samuel D. 
Gross usually copyrighted his own productions ; and I presume 
there are few will call in question the quality of the professional 
atmosphere that surrounded these scientific luminaries. There 
are a great many scientific works published in the United States 
that are not copyrighted, but these are usually the productions 
of foreign authors, who are debarred from copyright here, owing 
to there being no international copyright. This condition of 
things give our publishers an advantage which many avail them- 
selves of. 
If the following anecdote is true of a religious publishing 
house, it is fair to presume that a secular publishing house would 
be less scrupulous: The Rev. Dr. Tulloch, principal of St. 
Andrew’s University, when on a visit to this country, called on 
a religious book concern in Cincinnati, and, not being known to 
the firm, asked for the works of Principal Tulloch, which were 
handed to him by a clerk in waiting. After examining the works, the doctor asked the clerk if there was much demand for 
them, and being informed that the edition was nearly exhausted 
and that a now one would soon be necessary, the doctor remarked 
that he was willing to take the books and pay for them, but see- 
ing that he was the author, he thought the firm could well afford 
to present them to him. Upon this, the clerk took the books 
back to the counting-room and reported to the reverend heads 
of the “concern” what had transpired in the sales-room. Dr. 
Tulloch was at once introduced, and was generously presented 
with a package of his own books. As the doctor left the estab- 
lishment with the package under his arm, he was heard to 
remark: “I would prefer less of your courtesy and more of 
your siller, my guid people.” 
It is humiliating to know that we have a member in our pro- 
fession, who is also a professor, who has allowed himself to 
become so agitated over “secret material, patented” that he 
feels impelled to indite letters to members of the medical pro- 
fession, setting forth what he considers irregular practices in the 
dental profession, couched in language that puts the party inter- 
rogated on the defensive. 
“ I wrote to our hospital, in Boston, to know if the clinics 
there are ever used for the purpose of introducing patent instru- 
ments, medicines, or operations, secret or proprietary articles; 
or if instruments are used there, on which the surgeons receive a 
royalty or commission from makers owning patents and controll- 
ing them; and if such makers are allowed to influence the 
appointment of operators at clinics; are members of the staff 
obliged to ask permission of each other for the liberty to improve 
instruments, and can makers interfere or prevent their doing so ? ” 
The answer of the resident physician of the hospital to these 
questions was very properly in the negative ; and they would 
have received the same answers had they been addressed to the 
master or chairman of a committee on clinics of any dental school 
or society. Had Dr. Meriam written to members of our pro- 
fession, whose special duty it is to take charge of clinics in our 
societies, he might have obtained the desired information from 
the only proper authority, so far as the conduct of dental clinics are concerned. And this simple act of courtesy was certainly 
due the dental profession from one of its own members. 
Instead of adopting this course, he visits a hospital for chil- 
dren, in Boston, and after asking a number of questions, he 
unloads his burden of grievances before the surgeon in charge : 
“ Then I told him the whole story of the shameful, illiberal 
condition of dental practice ; that instruments ordered could not 
bo delivered, on account of the quarrels and litigation among 
makers; that honorable practitioners had been forced, by threats 
of litigation, to take out licenses to perform operations, and pay 
a commission on the amount received ; were obliged to allow the 
company liberty to examine their books ; that I had heard that 
upwards of a hundred orders for one instrument could not be 
filled because dentists had sold to makers the power to control 
instruments their fellow members needed ; that valuable instru- 
ments could not be introduced, because patents were thought to 
cover them, and, by having purchased those, the makers could 
threaten with litigation anyone who proposed to make them ; 
that certain instruments were held for lease, and not sold ; that 
a license and percentage were to be charged for their use, and 
that this license could be revoked at any time for non-payment. 
He exclaimed in astonishment: ‘ Are you dentists in such a hole 
as that ? ’ ” 
The doctor’s complaint is worthy of examination. “That on 
account of quarrels among instrument makers, instruments could 
not be delivered to those who had ordered them.” This state of 
affairs is bad for the manufacturers. The professional man need 
not take part in the quarrel, but ‘ ‘ sit like patience on a monu- 
ment, and smile at their grief; ” seeing that the existence of 
instrument makers are the result of professional men, and not 
the cause. 
“That honorable practitioners had been forced to take out 
licenses to perform operations, etc. ” If honorable men doubted 
the justice of the demand, they could not be forced to take out 
licenses. 
“That a hundred orders could not be filled, because dentists 
had sold to makers, etc.” Makers of instruments could not indulge in the luxury of buying the right not to manufacture, 
without suffering the consequences of their folly. 
“That valuable instruments could not be introduced because 
patents were thought to cover them.” If the instruments the 
doctor speaks of were really valuable, there would be no diffi- 
culty in finding a maker to manufacture them, for manufacturers, 
as a rule, are not deterred from manufacturing on mere supposi- 
tions of a patent interference ; they usually leave such questions 
of conscience to the courts for decision. 
“That certain instruments were held for lease, etc., and the 
license could be revoked for non-payment.” To revoke a license 
for breach of contract is certainly a great hardship to a man of 
liberal views. 
When we consider that the surgeon in charge of the children’s 
hospital, in Boston, was compelled to listen to such a batch of 
kindergarten complaints, one cannot be surprised that he was 
driven to the conclusion that the dental profession had dropped 
into a hole. 
Dr. Meriam obtains a letter from the genial author of the 
‘ ‘ Autocrat of the Breakfast Table, ” in which Dr. Holmes says 
“That it is for the dental profession to settle its own status. 
That dentistry, being largely mechanical, it tempts inventors 
to seek fortunes through improvements in dental instruments; 
and the more exactly they exclude owners of money-making con- 
trivances, who patent their inventions, the better will be their 
claim to bo considered a liberal profession. ” The invention of 
valuable dental and surgical instruments, as a rule, have their 
origin in a profound knowledge of the service they are to per- 
form in the hands of the operator, and are the productions of 
professional men. There can be no mistake about their origin, 
whether they bear the name of the inventor or the manufacturer. 
If they are given to the manufacturer, he will cover them with a 
trade or proprietary stamp; or by an agreement with the 
inventor, he can have a patent issued in his own name. There 
are many articles in use by the general surgeon and by the med- 
ical profession, that have found their way through such channels 
into the hands of the profession. And it is largely through the aid of the professional man that drug houses and instrument 
manufacturers have grown to their present dimensions. The 
wants of professional men increase with their accumulation of 
knowledge, and the inventive talent and investigative genius of 
the profession find means to supply their wants ; one patents and 
the other copyrights the fruits of his industry, in the hope of 
receiving compensation for his labor. They have spared no 
expense and devoted much time to their special fields of inquiry, 
while the large mass of their associates practice their teachings 
and use their inventions, and receive fees for their services in 
quiet. 
Are these members of a liberal profession to be driven out 
into the arms of manufacturers and publishers, where they will 
still continue to take out patents and copyrights ? Drive them 
out, and combinations and stock companies will be multiplied. 
No liberal profession can afford to treat with contumely its 
inventive talent. Sections in a code of ethics may outlive their 
usefulness, but inventive genius never can. Dr. Holmes has 
said that dentistry is largely mechanical; this is true, and the 
same can be said with propriety of the universe. The mechanism 
of dentistry deals with living tissue ; it is not the mechanism of 
the shops. Artificial teeth, mounted on plates, cannot be kept 
in stock like boots and shoes, or the duplicate parts of a thresh- 
ing machine. A set of artificial teeth cannot be compared with 
any other artificial device that can be substituted for a lost organ 
in the living body. A natural tooth has no muscular connection, 
but is dependent on the surrounding tissue for its mechanical 
usefulness. A set of artificial teeth must not impinge on the 
muscles of the face that are attached to the alveoli, and while 
they are accurately adapted to living tissue, they must meet the 
requirements of the idiosyncrasies of the individual for whom 
they are intended. All other applications of artificial devices to 
the human body, must, of necessity, interefere with muscular 
action at the site of their application ; hence, the dental surgeon 
is more successful in restoring a series of useful organs by artifi- 
cial means, than can be done in any operation in any other 
branch of surgery. The dental surgeon, by his skill in the use of instruments 
adapted for the purpose, is enabled to remove caries from the 
teeth, and by the use of metal, reconstruct the parts wasted by 
disease, and restore them again to health and usefulness. This 
material, used by the dental surgeon to reconstruct the teeth, is 
furnished by nature, but never used by nature for such a pur- 
pose. The teeth are the only bones in the body that are sus- 
ceptible of such treatment. They are exposed to external influ- 
ences ; they are more liable to injury and decay than other bones, 
but have no power of reparation ; this is owing to the mode of 
their formation. The calcification of a tooth commences at its 
circumference and hardens toward the center; the calcification 
of bone, in the center and hardens toward the circumference. 
Bone is centrifugal in its formation; tooth, centripetal. The 
general surgeon, in removing caries of the bone, has to await the 
healing power of nature to progenerate new bone tissue ; whereas 
the dental surgeon reconstructs the parts at once. Both sur- 
geons operate on the same plan, and use the same mechanical 
forces, controlled by disciplined fingers that are guided by an 
intimate knowledge of the parts concerned in the operation. 
In orthopaedic surgery, the treatment of talipes, or in lateral 
curvature of the spine, the means to correct the deformities are 
of the same character as those employed by the orthodontic sur- 
geon in correcting anomalies of the teeth, either of direction or 
position ; or in expanding the maxilla when laterally constricted. 
Both branches of surgery require, on the part of the operators, 
a practical knowledge of the mechanical arts to enable them to 
modify the apparatus furnished them by the manufacturers to 
meet the requirements, as well as an exact knowledge of that 
organized collection of mechanical forces, called anatomy. 
[to be continued.] 17 
[Reprint from Archives ok Dentistry, October, 1889.] 
PART HI. 
Among the many grievances enumerated by Dr. Meriam, he 
quotes a passage from the By-Laws of the Dental Trade Associa- 
tion, which if correct is very significant: “ In future, no prac- 
ticing dentist, not now a dealer. shall hr eligible to membership 
in this Association. or entitled to trade-discounts A This article 
in the By-Laws of the Trade Association, I consider one of the 
best acts of the Association, so far as the interests of the dental 
profession are concerned; and it is suggestive of many changes 
in many directions, that if acted upon by our profession, would 
contribute largely to needed reforms. But the exclusiveness of 
the Dental Trade Association is shown by this article in their 
by-laws; for had it been dictated by a spirit of justice, the fol- 
lowing clause would have suggested itself to make it complete : 
and any dentist, now a member of this Association, is prohibited 
from becoming a member or participating in the transactions of 
any dental society, whatsoever. 
We have a large number of men who are and have been 
actively engaged in merchandising for a number of years, who 
may have practiced dentistry formerly, but are, at the present 
time, merchants, admitted to membership in our societies and 
permitted to read papers, many of which are laudatory of the 
merchandise they have for sale. I do not mention this to incite 
a feeling of retaliation against the Dental Trade Association, for 
excluding practicing dentists from their deliberations; on the 
contrary, 1 think the Trade Association paid the dental profes- 
sion a deserved compliment, and made a frank acknowledgment 
that the methods of the merchant are more exclusive in their 
character than the methods in the practice of a liberal profession. 
A society of merchants and manufacturers meet to adjust their 
trade-relations, to discuss the market values of their products, 
discounts to the dealers who handle their goods, the probable 
demand for certain articles, reduction in the production of goods, 
to “steady the market," and the probable outlay and income in 
dollars and cents. A society of dentists meet to discuss tin' potency of things in their relation to disease, and the best meth- 
ods of restoring lost or diseased organs; the question of compen- 
sation for services is never discussed. Dental societies meet, 
members read their papers and discuss them with open doors; 
manufacturers and dealers in dental goods receive from executive 
committees assistance in finding suitable rooms for the display of 
their goods, and the members of their companies, their clerks 
and traveling salesmen, are uot debarred from being present at 
the reading of papers, the discussions, or the clinics; and this, 
because dentistry is a liberal profession. 
The American Dental Trade Association has found it expedi- 
ent to issue a circular-letter to the dental profession, through its 
president, the purport of which is to persuade the dental profes- 
sion that they are benefited by its existence, and that it is not “a 
combination, trust, or pool,” but simply designed “to help and 
not to hinder the advancement of dental science and art. ” In short, 
the Trade Association's fondest hope is that the dental profession 
and the Trade Association will assist each other, just like man 
and wife. We have the president’s word for it that competition 
actually does exist “imi.de the Association /” that manufac- 
turers fix the retail price on their own goods, and sell to dealers 
all over the country on the simple agreement that goods shall 
not be sold for less than the prices fixed by the manufacturers rn 
the Association. We are further informed that “the manufac- 
turer can change his prices whenever he chooses, without let or 
hindrance;” the only stipulation being that he will notify those 
who are dealing in his goods, that they may conform to the 
changes. 
That a manufacturer is free to make his own rates, either in or 
out of an association, has never been questioned by anyone; but 
when manufacturers agree among themselves to set the retail 
price, as well as the wholesale price, and refuse to sell to dealers 
who will not submit to be controled by the manufacturer in their 
retail business, it becomes a question in which the consumer is 
deeply interested ; for such an association of manufacturers, and 
retail dealers who submit to their terms, is a combination, a 
trust, a pool, or a conspiracy against the consumer: and all the legerdemain of sophistry can never change it. A man purchases 
a quantity of goods from a manufacturer; they become his prop- 
erty : he seeks his own market: and the locality which he may 
select wherein to offer his merchandise for sale, may enable him 
to sell cheaper, with more clear gain, than if he had selected 
some other locality; and he may be satisfied to sell for a less 
profit than others. Rents, cost of living, and frugality on the 
part of the dealer, are all factors governing the retail market- 
price of merchandise; and it is owing to these circumstances 
that political economists draw the distinction between the mar- 
ket, or accidental value of commodities, and the intrinsic or 
natural value, or cost of production. 
The Dental Trade Association, speaking through its president, 
compares itself to the United States Government, when it puts a 
stop to the unjust discriminations practiced by the common 
carriers of the country ; and it says, with some degree of pride, 
that, “the American Dental Association undertook, of its own 
motion, to put a stop to discriminations in their own line of 
business, and to place all who dealt with its members upon the 
same plane of honorable and equitable treatment.” 
We will now examine the main features of the Inter-State 
Commerce Law, and see if the comparison is justifiable: The 
law provides that all common carriers must publish the rates, 
fares and charges, and no advance shall be made without ten 
days' previous notice; but reductions can be made without 
previous notice; and whenever such reduction is made, a printed 
notice must be given immediately and kept for public inspection; 
and when any common carrier has established and published his 
rates, it is unlawful for him to receive more or less for passen- 
gers or property, than is set forth on the published rates. There 
is nothing in the Inter-State Commerce Law to prevent a com- 
mon carrier reducing his rates : all that is required of the carrier 
is to give ten days’ public notice when he desires to increase 
them: and all other common carriers are not obliged to 
increase or decrease their rates because one chooses to do so. 
Competition between railroads, or common carriers, under the 
law, is not restricted in any sense ; one road can carry for noth- ing from St. Louis to New York, while the rest of the roads can 
charge various prices for the same service ; but all are required 
to publish their rates and give ten days1 notice to the public 
when they desire to increase them. The object of the law was 
to break up private agreements, associations, contracts, combina- 
tions, or pools, between two or more companies of common 
carriers. 
The president of the Dental Trade Association has discovered 
a very unique application for the word discrimination, when he 
applies it to members of the dental profession who did not buy 
the dental chair that was sold so cheap through the rivalry of 
three dealers : it certainly was not discrimination of any kind 
that induced the three dealers to become rivals in the sale of tin1 
chair; it was rather a want of discrimination on the part of the 
dealers ; for, during the fever-heat of competition between the 
rival dealers, any person could have bought the chair, and there 
could have been no discrimination in favor of or against the 
purchaser of any chair, afterwards, arising out of that transaction. 
If the Dental Trade Association, through its president, would 
use a little more discrimination in the use of words when 
addressing a liberal profession, his circular letter would have 
less the appearance of being a shameless perversion of facts. 
When a company of men engaged in the manufacture, and sale 
of dental goods, form an association for the express purpose of 
controling the retail price of their merchandise over a whole 
continent, and then find it necessary to instruct their president 
to issue a circular-letter, in the hope of convincing their retail 
purchasers that their organization was formed to protect the 
interests of the retail purchaser as much as their own, it is 
proper that the retail purchaser should inform the Association 
that he is capable of taking care of himself, and any voluntary 
proffers of assistance from interested parties will always be 
viewed with suspicion. It is clear to the most ordinary intellect 
that if the Dental Trade Association pays strict attention to their 
own business as manufacturers and merchants, they will be more 
intent on profiting by the dental profession, than the profession 
will be profited by them. 21 
When a man leaves the dental profession to engage in mer- 
chandising, it is because he feels that he is better adapted for 
trade and traffic, than for a liberal profession ; and it is safe to 
say that, so far as the circumstances surrounding a liberal pro- 
fession would permit, such men, when in practice, generally made 
a trade of their profession. When such a man leaves the prac- 
tice of dentistry for the more congenial pursuits of merchandising 
in dental goods, he soon realizes that he is a mere tender to the 
dental locomotive ; and, finding himself in this anomalous posi- 
tion, he seeks relief and profit in dental literature’; and the 
result is a dental journal published in connection with his mer- 
chandising. This gives him the advantage of advertising his 
own goods at an inconsiderable expense, and the goods of others 
for compensation. The reading matter of the journal is largely 
made up from the transactions of dental societies and the contri- 
butions from members of the profession in active practice, and 
the dental merchant takes charge of the subscription list and 
retains the profits ; another instance of the liberality of the 
dental profession. 
If dabbling in dental literature by the manufacturers and 
dealers in dental goods would end with journalism, there would 
be little injury done to the future student in dentistry ; but when 
“the principal dental manufacturing company of this country— 
or of the whole world” (to use an expression of one of the 
attaches of the firm), publishes a book in which useful things to 
the profession, in competition with their own goods, appearing 
in the same book, are suppressed and others misrepresented, and 
the firm, after being informed of the fact, recommends the book 
editorially as a text-book, such a firm becomes as great an 
embarrassment to the progress of the dental profession, as deaf- 
ness is to the current of conversation ; but without the same 
reasonable excuse. A recent correspondence with the head of 
this firm, in regard to the book in question, convinces me that 
the mind of the dental merchant must ever wander from that 
which is of the most importance to the dental profession to that 
which is of the first importance to himself: the condition of his 
ledger/ and it is not a question of honesty, but of selfish bias. “I’ll no say men are villains a’; 
The real harden’d wicked, 
Wha hae nae check but human law, 
Are to a few restricked; 
But, oeh! mankind are unco weak. 
An’ little.to be trusted; 
If self the wavering balance shake. 
It’s rarely right adjusted.” 
As a corroborant to these statements, 1 cannot do better than 
to quote a few passages from a paper read before the Mississippi 
Valley Dental Association, at a meeting held at Cincinnati, Ohio, 
March 7th, 1888, by Dr. \V. Storer How, an attache of the S. S. 
White Dental Manufacturing Company: the title of the paper 
was, “Professional Patents;” and as long as he confined his dis- 
course to the justice of the claims of the inventor to government 
protection, there was nothing offensive in the paper; but when 
he devotes two pages of adulation to the house he is connected 
with, unmindful of the existence of other manufacturers and 
other business dental journals in the United States, it furnishes 
one of the most remarkable instances of infatuation for self- 
interest on record. A few extracts from the doctor's essay will 
be sufficient: “There need be no hesitation in the use of super- 
latives when speaking of the sterling qualities of the men who 
control this great concern; they reflect honor upon the profes- 
sion which they have sedulously sought to promote, and have 
been largely instrumental in advancing to its present proud posi- 
tion among the noble and learned professions.” “It is further- 
more to be said that the president of the White house, as editor 
of the Dental Cosmos, has rendered inestimable service to den- 
tists and the dental profession during his connection with and 
conduct of that journal from its beginning, thirty years ago. 
What is implied in the personal supervision of three hundred 
and sixty monthly issues of a journal whose every page was to be 
and has been resolutely kept free of matter not related to den- 
tistry, nor expressed in good, clean English, no one can know 
but the inflexible, faithful and thoroughly competent editor. 
What the profession and the world knows, is that the Dental 
Cosmos is an honor to dentistry, to journalism, and to the profes- sional business men who have made and kept it foremost and 
highest.'’ 
In this exalted frame of mind, Dr. How sees nothing but sub- 
limity in the methods of dental merchandising and dental jour- 
nalism, as conducted by the “great house” with which he is 
connected, and becomes impressed with a desire to elevate the 
dental profession to the same level: “Will it not be an ascent to 
a higher plane of thought and action for ‘doctors' (teachers) to 
teach that professional honor is not a cloudy abstraction, nor a 
clannish distinction, nor an exclusive assumption; and that, in 
particular, a doctor of medicine or surgery is a person called to 
and trained in the professional business of the readjustment and 
repair of disordered human bodies for a cash consideration, due 
and to be paid upon the completion of the service?” In asking 
this question, Dr. How sinks as far below as Dr. Meriam soars 
above a true conception of what constitutes a liberal profession. 
When a merchant is sick, or suffering, he is not considered a 
lit subject to drive a bargain with; he is conscious of this, and 
stays away from the exchange; he is not in a mercantile condi- 
tion (“prime case”), so goes or sends for his physician, and 
gives himself up for treatment: there is no contract entered 
into, no contest of bargain and sale; he surrenderors himself 
into the hands of his physician, without reserve for treatment; 
he has no desire to be informed of the quality, quantity, or cost 
of the ingredients contained in the prescription handed to him 
by his physician, but receives it with all the confidence of depend- 
ent childhood. Upon his recovery, he is truly grateful, and he 
feels that the services rendered are not to be estimated by a 
“cash consideration;” he looks upon his physician as his bene- 
factor, and presents him his fee, more as a reward of merit than 
a “cash consideration for the completion of services.” A favor 
from a brother merchant might place him under an obligation, 
but would never inspire his gratitude. The obligation he could 
return in kind; but not that he owes his physician, and lie is, 
therefore, grateful. He would not feel offended, or less grateful 
to his physician for speaking of him as one of his patients; but 
if his brother merchant spoke of the favor he conferred, lie 24 
would very justly resent it as an intended injury: and this is 
one reason why the practice of medicine, in all its branches, is 
called honorable. 
“ To John I owe some obligation: 
But John unluckily thinks lit 
To publish it to all the nation, 
So John and I are more than quit.” 
As the smallest number of mankind are rich, and the largest 
number may be divided into those that are in moderate circum- 
stances and those who are poor, and as all are subject to disease 
and accident, it follows that a doctor's fees arc governed by these 
conditions. Discrimination in fees is. therefore, constant and 
necessary ; whereas, discrimination in merchandising, if indulged 
in to any extent, would be ruinous. A doctor's first care is the 
good of his patient, regardless of his fees. A merchant’s first 
care is his cash-book. A doctor is no more legally bound to give 
his services for nothing, than a merchant is to give his merchan- 
dise; but public opinion—custom which is stronger than statute- 
law—says that a doctor who can help a poor man. and will not 
without a fee, has less of humanity than a poor ruffian who robs 
and maims a rich man. to supply his necessities. Public opinion 
says, with truth, that it is something monstrous to contemplate 
a man of liberal education tearing out the bowels of a poor 
family by taking, for one visit, what would keep them in food 
for one week : and this is why public opinion calls medicine, 
with all its specialties, a liberal profession. Public opinion can 
never be changed by manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing doc- 
tors, no more than it can be influenced by professional dandyism.