REPLY 
TO 
DR. J. MARION SIMS’ PAMPHLET, 
ENTITLED 
“THE WOMAN’S HOSPITAL IN 1874/' 
BY HIS FORMER COLLEAGUES 
Drs. E. R. PEASLEE, T. A. EMMET, and T. G. THOMAS. 
NEW YORK: 
TROW’S PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, 
205-213 East 12tii Street. 
1877. REPLY 
TO 
DR. J. MARION SIMS’ PAMPHLET, 
** ENTITLED 
“THE WOMAN’S HOSPITAL IN 1874,” 
BY HIS FORMER COLLEAGUES 
Drs. E. R. PEASLEE, T. A. EMMET, and T. G. THOMAS. 
NE|Y YORK: 
TROW’S PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, 
205-213'’Bast 12th Street. 
1877. EEPLY 
TO DR. J. MARION SIMS’ PAMPHLET, 
ENTITLED 
“THE WOMAN’S HOSPITAL IN 1874,” 
AND 
ISSUED JUNE 1, 1877. 
In March, 1877, a biographical sketch of Dr. J. Marion Sims 
was published in this city, and widely distributed to members of 
the medical profession, in which distinct charges were made 
against us of unfairness to him while our colleague in the Wo- 
man’s Hospital. In a statement made by us on May 5th, we 
gave a simple narration of the facts connected with Dr. Sims’ 
separation from that hospital, and made an explicit denial of the 
allegations against us; our object being merely to vindicate our- 
selves without imputing wrong intentions to any one else. On 
the first of June a pamphlet in reply to our statement was pub- 
lished by Dr. Sims, and to this we now respond, lest our silence 
might seem to give consent to the groundless charges it contains. 
It sets forth his present feeling toward us, and assumes to de- 
scribe our former sentiments toward him. But since we believe 
that the profession feels very little interest in our likes or dis- 
likes, we shall not aim to produce a sentimental or sensational 
document. Either we have been guilty of grossly unworthy 
conduct toward Dr. Sims, or we have been outrageously maligned 
by him. We court the fullest and severest scrutiny of our con- 
duct, and we shall make a dispassionate and just statement in 
regard to his; and perhaps Dr. Sims will better know how to 
gauge his sympathy for us—of which he is now so liberal (p. 2.) 
—after cur task is completed. We do not accept his remark that 
in every medical quarrel there is wrong on both sides. We have 
done Dr. Sims no wrong whatsoever, in any respect. 
This controversy does not originate at all with us, but in the 4 
charges answered in our former statement; and we engage in it 
most reluctantly. 
We are fully aware of the fact that there are those in our pro- 
fession upon whom high-sounding phrases and plausible words 
will exert a powerful influence; but we are equally aware that 
the reflective and upright men, who constitute the large majority 
of our brethren, will lay a greater stress upon facts, however 
quietly they may be set forth, and to them do we appeal. 
The pamphlet of Dr. Sims gives the impression that for some 
time before his speech at the Anniversary Meeting of the AVo- 
man’s Hospital, which resulted in the acceptance of his resigna- 
tion, a want of harmony existed in the Medical Board, the 
majority of its members being desirous of Dr. Sims’ displace- 
ment from his position as attending surgeon. This is a flagrant 
misrepresentation of facts. Ho such feeling existed at any time, 
and all the members of the Board were practically in perfect 
harmony. Dr. Sims seemed adverse to the observance of rules 
and regulations in general; but every subject coming up 
for discussion was argued freely, fairly, and candidly. No 
feeling of jealousy ever existed in the Board, so far as we 
are aware, and we most solemnly aflirm that, instead of striv- 
ing to remove Dr. Sims from the Hospital, none of us ever 
thought that his connection with it would be severed except 
by death. For his own purposes, he now endeavors to make it ap- 
pear that we entered into a conspiracy to remove him, while we 
were as loyal to him as we were, and still are, to each other. 
No circumstance occurred to disturb the harmony of the Medi- 
cal Board until the Anniversary Meeting already alluded to, 
when, to quote his own words, “ like a clap of thunder from a 
clear sky,” the extraordinary speech of Dr. Sims, as unexpected 
as it was unwarrantable, produced a discord which has forced 
ns into this disagreeable correspondence, and now compels us 
to challenge the validity of certain new and specific charges 
contained in his recent pamphlet. 
AVe will consider these charges in order, and reply to each as 
concisely as possible. 
We are not the assailants in this controversy. 
1st. Dr. Sims’ assumption that he has been attacked by us 
has already been contradicted. We were publicly assailed in a 5 
biographical sketch of him, which was widely circulated among 
our friends as wrell as his, and the choice was left us of permit- 
ting the charges to pass unanswered, or of replying to them. We 
chose the latter course, at the same time sparing Dr. Sims as far 
as possible. 
Dr Sims’ suspicions respecting our former statement. 
2d. Dr. Sims suspects us of intentionally issuing our reply 
just on the eve of his departure for Europe, of antedating it, of 
misspelling his name, etc. In reply to these suspicions, we merely 
state the exact circumstances: When our statement was signed 
on the 5th of May, we decided not to publish it until after Dr. 
Sims’ return from Europe in the autumn, since we had learned 
from the newspapers that he would leave the city on the twelfth, 
and it was found impossible to get it published in a medical 
journal until the very day on which he was to sail. But it was 
soon afterwards announced that his departure was postponed until 
the nineteenth, when we decided to have it printed at once, and 
without waiting for a medical journal, since it could thus be got 
ready by the evening of the sixteenth, when a copy could be sent 
to him. Through delay on the part of the printer, it was not 
issued till nearly noon of the eighteenth, when the clerk who was 
employed to distribute it to the profession generally, was directed 
to mail one copy to Dr. Sims, and to take a second directly to 
his house. It is very likely that he directed both envelopes “ by 
the same hand and with the same ink,” and it is even possible 
that he may have misspelled Dr. Sims’ name. Certain, however, 
are we, that this could not have been intentional. We would 
gladly have consulted Dr. Sims’ convenience by preparing our 
statement several weeks earlier, but we saw the biographical 
sketch only in time to issue it when we did. 
Dr. Sims “ did not vote ” for the adoption of the rides, Jan. 12, 
1874. 
3d. Dr. Sims declares that he did not vote for the adoption of 
the two rules passed by the Board of Governors; that he did not 
protest or vote negatively, but that he did not vote at all. In 
reference to these matters his memory has proved most treacher- 
ous, as a detail of the circumstances will show. 
For several months the Board of Governors and Lady Super- 
visors had expressed great dissatisfaction at the contamination of 6 
tlie wards and the inconvenience to patients, arising from the 
odors created by cases of uterine cancer; and at the very large 
number of spectators crowded into the email operating-room; 
on one occasion as many as seventy-three having been counted at 
an operation for ovariotomy. The majority of the Medical Board 
fully sympathized in these feelings, and a communication having 
been received concerning this matter from the Board of Gover- 
nors, the prevailing disposition was to do all in its power to correct 
these abuses. Several meetings wTere held upon the subject, and 
on the twelfth of January, 1874, resolutions were passed by the 
Medical Board requesting the Board of Governors to exclude 
cancer cases from the Hospital, and to limit the number of spec- 
tators present at any operation to twenty-five. Upon these reso- 
lutions Dr. Sims voted affirmatively, withdrawing his previous 
opposition to them and seeming, as far as we could judge, to be 
fully in sympathy with us in the course which wTas decided upon. 
These resolutions were, by order of the Medical Board, on that 
very evening placed by its Secretary in the hands of the Presi- 
dent of the Board of Governors, and were at once passed by that 
body, with the alteration of limiting the number of spectators to 
fifteen instead of twenty-five. 
About a week subsequently an informal meeting was held for 
the purpose of arranging means for limiting the number of visi- 
tors, as directed by the Board of Governors. All the members 
of the Board were present, and after the business was finished, 
Dr. Sims, much to our astonishment, read a paper and a series of 
resolutions which he had prepared, and which he characterizes as 
“ a dignified and manly protest against the action of the Board 
of Governors ” (p. 10). These resolutions advocated resistance 
to the wishes of that Board, and entirely contradicted the reso- 
lutions which had been unanimously passed a week before. Dr. 
Sims was at once reminded that the resolutions of the past week 
had been put in the hands of the Board of Governors; but, with 
an inconsistency which is almost incredible, lie still persisted in 
pressing them. Dr. Emmet asked, “Dr. Sims, do you wish to 
reconsider the subject?” “No,” said Dr. Sims. Dr. Thomas 
then said, referring to the Board stultifying itself by then con 
testing what one week before it had unanimously recommended, 
“ If we take the stand you suggest, we shall all be turned out,” 
adding, “and we should all richly deserve such treatment.” 7 
The remark imputed to Dr. Emmet, “ Dr. Sims, take care of 
that document, we may need it to fall back on,” and Dr. Sims’ 
reply to Dr. Thomas, are the offspring of a wonderfully prolific, 
but unfortunately distempered imagination. There had been 
no understanding at the previous meeting that written opinions 
should be presented at this meeting; for we considered the 
whole subject as then finally disposed of. 
At that time this extraordinary conduct of Dr. Sims was an 
enigma to us; now wre are forced to believe that his object was 
to put this high-sounding but harmless protest upon record, so 
that in the future he might, as he is now doing, take to himself 
the credit for a bold course which he did not in reality pursue. 
It is true, as he vauntingly declares in his pamphlet, that he 
uniformly broke the rule in regard to the number of spectators 
at operations; but nothing can be argued from this, for from the 
moment of his connection with the Hospital he disregarded all 
the rules, whether passed by the Board of Governors, or the 
Medical Board, even with his own concurrence. 
Such was Dr. Sims’defense of “the honor and interests of 
the medical profession” within the Medical Board; such the 
sum and substance of his “ dignified and manly protest against 
the action of the Board of Governors.” On no other occasion 
had he offered any resistance whatever, and this remarkable in- 
stance is faithfully and candidly reported. 
Dr. Sims “ did not read ” the report which he approved. 
4th. Dr. Sims says with regard to our Annual Report: “1 
approved it without reading it.” This was literally so. The 
Secretary called upon him with the report after gas-light, and 
presented it for his perusal. Dr. Sims took it, looked at it, 
made some jesting remark about increasing age and failing eye- 
sight, and asked the Secretary to read it to him. Sitting close 
beside him, the Secretary did so, and Dr. Sims having heard 
every word of it read, said, “ All right. I wouldn’t alter a word ; 
it couldn’t be better.” 
The reader will perceive how this accords with Dr. Sims’ 
promise on the first page of his pamphlet: “ I shall deal in no 
questionable innendos, nor in constructive interpretations of facts 
which may lead to wrong conclusions ” !! 8 
5th. But we come now to the most malicious of the charges 
which Dr. Sims makes against us. It is that his treacherous 
brethren of the Medical Board, while ostensibly feeling for him 
a friendly sympathy, insidiously furnished a member of the 
Board of Governors (Col. Davis) with statistics of operations in 
the Hospital which misrepresented him, and thus privately used 
their influence with Col. Davis and other members of the 
.Board of Governors to “put him out” of the Hospital. We 
can scarcely appreciate the mental state which could in- 
spire Dr. Sims with such malevolence, and even induce him 
to repeat this accusation seven times in his pamphlet. We had 
no more agency in obtaining these statistics, and no more de- 
sign respecting them, than Dr. Sims himself, as the following 
letter from Col. Davis will prove. It will also show that Dr. 
Sims had really been “ put out” of the Hospital before Col. D. 
had thought of obtaining any statistics. We simply record our 
indignant denial of this foul aspersion, and leave it to Col. 
Davis himself to state the facts; he having, without any solicita- 
tion on our part, sent to us the following communication : 
The most malicious of Dr. Sims’ charges. 
New Yoke, June 2, 1877. 
Gentlemen :—There was left at my house this afternoon the 
reply in pamphlet form of Dr. J. Marion Sims to your printed 
circular, previously addressed by you to the medical profession, 
under date of May fi, 1877. I find upon the perusal of it the 
following statement made by Dr. Sims on its twentieth page: 
“ Soon after this. Mr. Stuart ascertained that my pretended 
friends in the Medical Board had furnished Mr. Davis, one of 
the Governors, with some statistics of operations performed at 
the Woman’s Hospital, and that Mr. Davis had used them in the 
Board of Governors to prove that I was the most reckless and 
unsuccessful of the surgeons of the Hospital, and should, there- 
of ore, be put outT 
And again : “ Xo wonder they could not, as a Board, enter 
a protest against my going out of the Hospital when they were 
privately using their influence with Mr, Davis and other mem- 
bers of the Board to put me out” 
Dr. Sims has been most egregiously deceived by whoever 
gave either himself or Mr, Stuart the information that you either 
directly or indirectly exercised, or attempted to exercise, the 
slightest influence with me in whatever I may have done in con- 
nection with the acceptance of his resignation by the Board of 9 
Governors. And as Dr. Sims, acting upon this misapprehension 
of the facts as derived from others, has done you great injustice, 
I feel constrained, as an act of justice to each of you, and that 
Dr. Sims’ mind may be disabused of all the prejudice it may 
have imbibed, arising from the part you may have taken, so far 
as I am involved in the matter, to state the circumstances pre- 
cisely as they transpired. 
Dr. Sims at the Anniversary, in 1874, of the Woman’s Hos- 
pital, made a most unprovoked and unjustifiable attack on the 
Board of Governors, charging them with “ acts of tyranny” for 
having, among other complaints, adopted two resolutions. One 
of which was to the purport that but fifteen medical spectators 
should be present at any operation, in addition to those who were 
entitled to admission from their official connection with the Hos- 
pital. And the other, which thereafter excluded all cancer cases 
from admission to the institution, the hospital having been estab- 
lished and chartered for the treatment only of “ diseases peculiar 
to women” 
Dr. Sims concluded his attack upon the Board of Governors 
with a vehement threat that unless the Board at its then next 
regular meeting repealed the two resolutions above referred to, 
his resignation was at their disposal. 
The Board met in its regular course in December, during 
the proceedings of which I preferred charges of “ gross insubor- 
dination” against Dr. Sims, and for which his removal was 
asked. His letter of resignation, together with his apology for 
his attack upon the Board, was also before us for its action, and 
after an animated and somewhat protracted discussion the resig- 
nation of Dr. Sims was unanimously accepted as a substitute for 
my resolution, which provided for his removal. 
At the time of this action of the Board of Governors, the 
statistics of which Dr. Sims complains had not been applied for 
by me, nor had I any knowledge whatever of their details, other 
than that the records of the Hospital contained them, whatever 
they might be. 
After the resignation of Dr. Sims had been accepted, the 
Medical Board, as required by the By-Laws of the Institution, 
convened, and nominated Dr. Fordyce Barker to fill the vacancy 
which the resignation of Dr. Sims had created. That nomina- 
tion was generally known to have been made by those imme- 
diately connected with the administration of the affairs of the 
Hospital, soon after it had been consummated, and that at the 
next regular meeting of the Board, to be holden on the second 
Tuesday of January, 1875, it would be called upon to act upon 
the nomination of Dr. Barker as the successor of Dr. Sims. 
In the meantime I had been informed from an undoubted 
source, but in no way connected with any member of the medical 10 
profession, that Dr. Barker had been called upon by some per- 
sonal friends of Dr. Sims, whose influence had been exerted in a 
concerted effort to prevail upon Dr. Barker to decline the nomi- 
nation made by the Medical Board, in order that Dr. Sims might 
be re-elected to fill his own vacancy. I was further advised that 
strong opposition was to be made to the confirmation of Dr. 
Barker’s nomination, by some of the members of the Board, who, 
from their personal relations and strong attachment to Dr. Sims, 
and not from any objections of a professional nature to Dr. 
Barker, would oppose the vacancy being filled by any medical 
gentleman other than Dr. Sims himself. 
Although an entire stranger to Dr. Barker, not even knowing 
him by sight, but governed in my action by the exalted reputa- 
tion he enjoyed as a representative man of his profession, and 
conscientiously believing his appointment would give very gen- 
eral satisfaction botli within and without the medical profession, 
and consecpiently could not redound otherwise than to the great- 
est benefit of the Institution and advantage to its patients, I de- 
termined to stand by his nomination and to do all in my power 
to secure his confirmation by the Board. 
With this end in view, and that I might make no representa- 
tion before the Board not borne out by the official statistics of 
the Hospital, I applied in my official capacity as one of the 
Governors, to both Dr. Thomas as the Secretary, and to Dr. 
Emmet as the Chairman of the Medical Board, for the informa- 
tion I desired; propounding in writing such questions as I 
deemed essential to elicit the facts I was in quest of. 
Th is information was of a nature which every member of the 
Board of Governors was entitled to upon application, and em- 
braced nothing but a compilation of facts from the records of 
the Hospital, and which record was in the custody or under the 
control of the Medical Board, and which was alone responsible 
for the accuracy of its contents. 
At the January meeting, 1875, of the Board of Governors, a 
month after Dr. Sims had ceased to be a surgeon of the Woman's 
Hospital, the statistics that he alleged were used “ to put me 
(him) out,” were for the first time brought to the notice or 
knowledge of the Board of Governors, and while the nomination 
of Dr. Barker was under consideration. 
These are the simple facts, as fairly and impartially given as 
it is in my power to state them. 
In conclusion, permit me to add that there is not the slightest 
foundation for the accusation of Dr. Sims, that either one of 
you, under any circumstances, or at any time or upon any occa- 
sion, attempted either directly or indirectly to influence or preju- 
dice me against Dr. Sims, or indulged in any remarks that the 
most far-fetched construction could characterize as being of an 11 
unfriendly nature towards him, or could be tortured into even 
an impression that you desired that his resignation should be 
accepted by the Board of Governors. 
I was never approached in a single instance by either one of 
you upon the subject, nor was there even an interview held by 
me with either of you except upon my own voluntary motion, 
and only then in my official capacity, for such information as 
the Board of Governors had the unquestioned and unquestion- 
able right to obtain from you as surgeons of the Hospital, and 
which in the judgment of any one of its members might be deemed 
essential to enable such member to act intelligently and in such 
direction as he believed would promote to the greatest extent 
the benefit and usefulness of the Hospital. 
With great respect, 
Yours truly, 
Geo. T. M. Dayis, one of the Governors, etc. 
Doctors T. A. Emmet, 
T. G. Thomas, 
E. II. Peaslee, 
Surgeons. 
Dr. Sims introduces these statistics to the readers of his pam- 
phlet in the following words : 
“Humber of operations performed in the Woman’s Hospital 
from the 1st of May, 1872, to the 22d December, 1874 (being 
from the day Dr. Sims entered the Hospital till he left it): 
Number op Patients Admitted. 
No. of Operations. 
No. of 
Deaths. 
By Dr. Sims 
.237 
215 
14 
“ Dr. Thomas 
.207 
93 
11 
“ Dr. Peaslee 
.132 
88 
6 
ic Dr. Emmet 
.143 
116 
1 
“ Mr. Davis flourished this table of statistics before the Gov- 
ernors, and proved by it, to the satisfaction of a majority, that I 
was the most unsuccessful of the surgeons connected with the 
Hospital. lie refused (I understand) to let any of the Board 
see the document, saying it was private. I do not blame Mr. 
Davis, but I blame my associates of the Medical Board, who 
armed him with this document without explaining to him its 
true significance. What then is the real interpretation of the 
figures in this statistical table ? [N. B. The above is not Col. 
Davis’ table, but Dr. Sims’; the two do not agree.] 12 
“ Of all operations performed, 
Dr. Sims lost 6 y per cent. 
“ Thomas “ 11 y “ 
“ Peaslee 0 “ 
“ Emmet “ one in 116. 
“ Dr. Emmet should be counted out of this table altogether, 
because the chronic cases he treated, such as vesico-vaginal 
fistula, etc., and which we generally turned over to him, were 
not of dangerous character, and never resulted fatally. 
“The foregoing table shows that I admitted 30 patients more 
than Dr. Thomas, 88 more than Dr. Emmet, and 105 more than 
Dr. Peaslee. 
“ I performed 99 more operations than Dr. Emmet, 122 more 
than Dr. Thomas, and 127 more than Dr. Peaslee. With a 
larger number of purely surgical cases than any of my associates 
had, it is reasonable to suppose that I would have had relatively 
a larger number of bad cases, and a larger relative mortality. 
But my per centum of mortality, as seen above, is less than Dr. 
Peaslee’s, and but little more than half that of Dr. Thomas. 
“ Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, and Thomas know very well, and knew 
it at the time they gave Mr. Davis the statistics of the operations 
performed at the Woman's Hospital, that they were, in a scienti- 
fic point of view, of no value whatever. But Mr. Davis, of 
course, did not know this. 
“Mr. Davis saw that Dr. Emmet lost but one patient, Dr. Peas- 
lee six, Dr. Thomas eleven, and Dr. Sims fourteen—ergo, Dr. 
Sims was a reckless, dangerous, and unsuccessful surgeon 
“ Dr. Peaslee’s mortality was a fraction greater than mine, and 
Dr. Thomas’s nearly twice as great, although Mi*. Davis did not 
so represent it, nor so understand it. 
“ But all this cavilling over statistics and percentages on such 
a small scale is ridiculous in the eyes of medical men who know 
anything about it. Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, and Thomas, when 
they were using this table through Mr. Davis, ought to have 
known that it was deceptive.” 
When Dr. Sims wrote this he was fully aware that these statis- 
tics were neither prepared nor presented by the Medical Board, 
that they were entirely incorrect, and that another member of 
the Board (Dr. Thomas), who stated these facts to him, was in- 
finitely more misrepresented by them than himself. Yet, know- 13 
ing all this, and just after declaring that such statistics could not 
but mislead, he draws deductions from them to show that he 
was more successful as an operator than the other surgeons of 
the Hospital! 
When Mr. Davis wrote to Dr. Thomas as Secretary, and Dr. 
Emmet as Chairman of the Medical Board, for the records of 
the Hospital, the former sent him a general statement without 
referring to the statistics of individuals; and the latter, after 
furnishing information collated from the published reports of 
the Hospital up to the time of the change in its organization, 
sent Col. Davis’ communication to the House Surgeon, with in- 
structions to examine the Hospital records and to give Col. Davis 
all the information since that period, as demanded by him. 
The Medical Board neither collectively nor individually ever 
examined the reports obtained by Mr. Davis until some time after 
lie had used them ; then they found them to be incorrect. But the 
absence of any design of injuring Dr. Sims, on the part of those 
who prepared them, is fully shown by the fact that one of our 
number, and not Dr. Sims, is chiefly misrepresented by them. 
This gentleman preferred to bear in silence this misrepresenta- 
tion, and the true records of the Hospital are even now made 
public only because Dr. Sims’ statements render it necessarv. 
We shall not go into this subject in detail, but allude only to 
those points required as a reply to Dr. Sims. 
Deport of total number of operations, with the results of the 
same, performed in the Woman’s Hospital, from April, 1872, to 
January, 1875. 
No. 
of Operations. 
No. 
of Deaths. 
By Dr. Sims 
152 
12 
u Dr. Thomas 
119 
10 
a Dr. Peaslce 
91 
6 
u Dr. Emmet 
109 
2 
It appears upon the records that 64 of Dr. Sims’ 152 opera- 
tions consisted in slitting the cervix uteri, a procedure which was 
not practised one-third as often by any one of his colleagues as by 
him, and which was resorted to by Dr. Sims nearly twice as often 
as by the three other surgeons combined. With reference to 14 
cervical section, Dr. Sims says in his work upon Uterine Surgery,* 
that “ the operation is less painful than the use of the bougie, 
which must be repeated for months; that it is entirely devoid 
of danger from hemorrhage, provided we exercise ordinary pru- 
dence in the after-treatment; that it is less frequently followed 
by pelvic inflammation than either the bougie or the sponge-tent.” 
Surely an operation which is attended by no more danger than 
the use of a sponge-tent should not be considered in the same 
category with ovariotomy. Subtracting, therefore, all cervical 
sections from the list of each operator, the matter is represented 
in figures thus: 
No. 
of Operations. 
No. 
of Deaths. 
By Dr. Sims 
88 
12 
“ Dr. Thomas 
99 
10 
“ Dr. Peaslee 
73 
6 f 
2 
“ Dr. Emmet 
105 
During this period thirty operations were per- 
formed in the hospital; the results as given by the records are 
these: 
No 
of Operations. 
No. 
of Deaths. 
Bv Dr. Sims 
11 
7 
“ Dr. Thomas 
11 
4 
“ Dr. Peaslee 
6 
4 
“ Dr. Emmet 
2 
0 
The statistics here recorded are given upon the authority of 
the three gentlemen whose names are appended. 
“We certify that the above statistics are taken from the record 
* English ed. p. 152. 
f One of these 6 was a case of suicide—no operation having been performed, 
t Under ovariotomy are also classed laparotomy for removal of entire uterus, 
normal ovariotomy, and removal of cysts of the broad ligament. books of the Woman’s Hospital, and are correct to the best of 
our knowledge and belief.” 
(Signed) 
James B. Hunter, M.D., Asst. Surgeon, N. Y. 
State Woman’s Hospital. 
A. S. Clarke, M.D., House Surgeon, N. Y. 
State Woman’s Hospital. 
E. C. Dudley, M.D., Senior Asst. House Sur- 
geon, N. Y. State Woman’s Hospital. 
Let the reader calculate for himself the proportion of deaths, 
and he will be able to form an estimate as to the value of Dr. 
Sims’ deductions from reports which he chooses to assume were 
made to the Board of Governors by us, and used to his detri- 
ment. 
His colleagues reported as desiring Dr. Sims’ resignation. 
6th. Dr. Sims declares that one of the Board of Governors 
asserted to him that his associates in the Medical Board were 
opposed to him, and desired the Governors to accept his resig- 
nation. We never gave the least foundation for any such 
statement, and Dr. Sims should not have listened to it, if it really 
were made to him, knowing, as he did, that some of his col- 
leagues were at that very time, to their own detriment, en- 
deavoring as individuals to prevent the acceptance of his 
resignation. 
Dr. Sims’ apology was not read before the Medical Board. 
7th. Dr. Sims declares in a letter to Col. Davis: “In a state 
of momentary excitement I verbally tendered my resignation, 
and tlms honor compelled me to send it in. But I accompanied 
it with an apology as proper and complete as any gentleman 
ought to require of another. I read this apology to your Medi- 
cal Board, and they each said that it was all that could be 
desired.” 
Strange as it must appear to those who read this, Dr. Sims 
never at any time, nor in any form, presented to us his letter of 
resignation or his note of apology. Never, either by verbal re- 
port or written communication, did we have either brought before 
us for the expression of our opinion, and two of our number (P. 16 
and E.) were absolutely ignorant of the fact that any apology to 
the Governors had been written until after Dr. Sims’ resignation 
had been accepted. 
Why no protest against the acceptance of Dr. Sims’ resignation. 
8th. Dr. Sims arraigns us for not protesting as a Board against 
the acceptance of his resignation by the Board of Governors. 
But this matter was taken out of the hands of the Medical 
Board by Dr. Sims himself : For, 
1. lie distinctly stated, at the close of his anniversary speech, 
that he did not speak for the Medical Board, but for himself. 
Our readers already know that he spoke against the thoroughly 
considered views of the Board, as given in its annual report, and 
which he had himself endorsed on the preceding day. 
2. He accompanied his proffered resignation by a threat to the 
Board of Governors, saying, “ he would no longer remain in an 
institution where he could not be treated like a gentleman him- 
self, nor treat his friends like gentlemen,” unless the two rules 
were rescinded at their next meeting. But we could not, as a 
Board, request them to abolish rules which we, together with Dr. 
Sims, had requested them to enact, as both necessary and right. 
3. Dr. Sims knew very well, from indications we had given 
him in our discussions in January, 1874—when he was at first 
opposed to the establishment of these rules—that we could not 
now, without stultifying ourselves, sustain him in his opposition 
to them. 
4. Knowing all the antecedent facts, we believed, and still be- 
lieve, that Dr. Sims’ anniversary speech was, as a whole, pre- 
pared for the occasion, though some sentences were probably not 
premeditated. Knowing, as he did, that we could not defend 
him, he would 11‘ot have made a direct personal issue with the 
Board of Governors without previously counting the possible 
cost.- But he had no intention or expectation of leaving the 
Hospital. O11 the contrary, he considered himself so indispensable 
to that institution, that the Governors would be intimidated by 
his threat and abolish the rules. With him, opposition to his 
preferences was “ oppression ” and “ tyranny,” and he came to 
consider himself sufficient, unaided, to put an end to it in his 
own way. Surely this was “ a great mistake; ” but the Medical 
Board could not interfere in the “ conflict ” which Dr. Sims had 17 
thus initiated. And when Dr. Thomas told Dr. Sims that “ we 
had never thought ” of sending a protest to the Governors, he 
merely meant, as Dr. Sims did not fail to know, that it had 
never occurred to us to do so foolish a thing. This is another 
instance of “ constructive interpretation of facts, etc., ” by Dr. 
Sims. 
5. Dr. Sims had conditioned his longer stay in the Hospital 
upon the repeal of the rules. But the Medical Board could not 
repeal them ; and to protest against the acceptance by the Gov- 
ernors of a resignation which Dr. Sims virtually said should be 
accepted if they did not repeal the rules—for he said he 
would not stay in the Hospital if they did not—would be, first, to 
discredit Dr. Sims’ word, and then to protest against ourselves 
and Dr. Sims even, in protesting to the Governors. If Dr. Sims 
was to remain any longer in the Hospital, either he or the Gov- 
ernors must yield. It was not for the Medical Board to dictate 
or even advise which should do so. 
6. Dr. Sims did not request nor desire the interference of the 
Medical Board in his “ conflict.” It was only after his resigna- 
tion was accepted, and after his successor had been nominated 
by the Medical Board, and as an after-thought, that he put this 
“ constructive interpretation ” upon our non-interference. He 
had by no means proposed to share with the Medical Board the 
triumph he confidently expected over the Governors, and at the 
same time quite as much over us ; but, having failed, he would 
now make us responsible for his defeat. 
7. After we had nominated Dr. Sims’ successor, we were of 
course committed to the latter. 
Thus, as the Medical Board, we declined to act, though pre- 
viously to our nomination of his successor, individual efforts were 
made to induce Dr. Sims to modify his position, and to soften the 
feelings of the Governors towards him. 
Dr. Sims’ speech not reported “ verbatim 
The anniversary speech of Dr. Sims, as reported (pages 
is not a discreditable performance. But he has used the term 
“ verbatim ” in a sense we do not comprehend; since not only- 
words, but several sentences, including several essential points 
of the actual speech, are wanting in this report, while new sen- 
tences and new sentiments are added. Indeed, the entire pro- 18 
duction is here so toned down, so respectful to the Board of 
Governors and the Lady Supervisors, and so thoughtful of the 
profession at large, that one gets from it but a faint idea of the 
style and effect of the original performance. When, therefore, 
Dr.” Sims writes “ and every word of it is true,” he must mean to 
express his own estimate—but it is not ours—of the speech as 
reported, but certainly not of the report itself. This general 
statement is confirmed by the following letter from Col. Davis, 
who replied to Dr. Sims’ speech immediately after its delivery: 
Doctors E. R. Peaslee, T. A. Emmet, T. G. Thomas : 
Gentlemen ;—In reply to your note of this date, in which you 
make the inquiry of me, “ whether the report of the speech in a 
pamphlet recently published by Dr. J. M. Sims, entitled, ‘ The 
Woman’s Hospital in 1S74,’ is a verbatim report of the same,” 
I beg leave to say that, with the intention of replying to that 
speech, I paid particular attention to it as it was made by Dr. 
Sims. I have also several times carefully read the speech as it 
appears in the pamphlet to which you have called my attention, 
and I have no hesitation in saying that it is not a verbatim re- 
port of the same. On the contrary, the most offensive portions 
of it are entirely omitted; especially his accusation against the 
Lady Supervisors, while alluding to the exclusion of a cancer 
case, that the Ladies wanted to turn a dying woman into the 
streets. lie has also omitted his defiant threat, that unless the 
Governors at their next meeting rescinded the resolutions of 
which he complained, his resignation was at their disposal. 
Yours truly, Geo. T. M. Davis. 
New Yoke, June 19, 1877. 
In a letter to Col. Davis (Jan. 12, 1875), Dr. Sims himself 
says his speech was “ most intemperate and unjustifiable ” * * * 
“ uncalled for and indefensible.” 
Synopsis of Dr. Sims’’ Actual Speech. 
But we shall now give a brief synopsis of the speech as deliv- 
ered, including its topics and also some characteristic passages not 
found in the report': 
Dr. Sims commenced his speech with the remark that it had 
been customary on occasions like that for everybody to praise 
and compliment everybody ad nauseam, and that this was all very 
well. But certain little “ unpleasantnesses” had also occurred 
of late, and he should like to say something of them, as they 
had disturbed the harmony of the Boards. 19 
1. The first was in respect to the name of The Woman’s Hospi- 
tal—“ in the State of Hew York,” being insisted on by the Board 
of Governors, while it should be “ of the State of Hew York.” 
[This petty question had not disturbed the harmony of the 
Boards; and Dr. Sims’remarks upon it are pretty nearly given in 
his pamphlet.] 
2. The second “subject of dispute between us”—i. e., the 
Boards—was the rule forbidding the admission of cases of carci- 
noma uteri into the Hospital. His remarks on this topic are also 
pretty nearly reproduced in the pamphlet, but not the offensive 
style. [This subject had produced no dispute between the 
Boards, except so far as Dr. Sims had caused it; and the Medi- 
cal Board “ did not submit to the dictation ” of the Governors, 
but requested them to pass the rules, as we have seen. It had 
been the rule to reject cases of carcinoma uteri while Dr. Emmet 
was Surgeon-in-Chief of the Hospital; but the other three mem- 
bers of the Board, not being aware of this fact on becoming con- 
nected with the Hospital, for a time treated such cases of this 
disease as they found assigned to them. The reasons for snch a 
rule are entirely conclusive and have been generall}7 stated on pp. 
5 and 6; and on learning its existence, the Board, with the excep- 
tion of Dr. Sims, rejected such cases. He, however, still admit- 
ted them when he chose to do so, and frequently announced in a 
boasting manner that he should continue to do so, until the dis- 
cussion of January 12, 1874:, when he voted in favor of the rule, 
and thus, as we supposed, finally accepted it in good faith. We 
should, however, add that it was this defiant attitude of Dr. Sims 
which induced the Governors to formally re-enact the rule.] 
3. “ The third cause of contention between us ”—i. e., the two 
Boards, was, Dr. Sims said, “ the limitation of the number of 
spectators to fifteen on operating-clays.” [Ilis remarks on this 
subject were in their tone and substance quite different from 
those in his pamphlet. He told the Board of Governors and 
the Lady Supervisors that the making of rules for the Medical 
Board was none of their business. lie was also then far less 
zealous for the profession. Indeed, what he said for the profes- 
sion was understood to be incidental and secondary, and added 
merely as a salvo to the rest of his speech. This must, however, 
have been the occasion, we suppose, when Dr. Sims “ defended 
the honor and interests of the profession with such independent 20 
zeal that he was forced unwillingly to resign his position as one of 
the surgeons ” p. 24. The only other time when he alluded to the 
interests of the profession, so far as we know, was in his 
paper read at the informal meeting of the Medical Board, before 
mentioned, which fell dead as it was read, and which, we are 
quite sure, was never afterward resuscitated. We add that 
this subject “ had not been a cause of contention between the two 
Boards,” but after full discussion the Boards agreed perfectly on 
the adoption of the rule ten months before this (January, 1874). 
Dr. Sims alone was contending against the Board of Governors, 
and against us, as we now perceived, though he had professed to 
yield, and had voted with us on the 12th of January in favor of 
both the rules. Kor were “ we (i. e., the Medical Board) dissatisfied, 
but had been shut out from the privilege of complaining.” The 
Medical Board was entirely satisfied—as expressed in the report 
read, with Dr. Sims’ full sanction, half an hour before he 
began his speech—and had nothing whatever to complain 
of. Dr. Sims alone was dissatisfied, and he therefore complained. 
We find it difficult to characterize Dr. Sims’ presumption, unless 
we call it insane, in thus assuming to utter in the name of the 
Medical Board what he knew the majority did not approve of, 
and thus attempting to commit the Board to his own inconsis- 
tency. But this madness was not quite without method. Months 
before he had, contrary to our known wishes, invited strangers to 
our operations, and had put an advanced cancer case into one of 
our beds, in order, we must believe, to make it appear to the 
Governors that we were united with him in setting at defiance 
rules of which he knew we approved as being necessary. 
Ill the speech (as well as in the report of it) Dr. Sims unfairly 
represented the Board of Governors as “ ostracizing the profes- 
sion,” and accused them of “ illiberality in excluding our coun- 
try friends ” from the Woman’s Hospital, as if such were the 
settled policy of that Board ; while the latter has ever considered 
the Hospital as a school for the profession at large, so far as 
physicians are disposed to avail themselves of it as such. It was 
with them simply a question how to accomplish all that is possi- 
ble in that direction, consistently with the welfare of the inmates 
of the Hospital; and the operating-room being small, the number 
of strangers at any operation was limited to 15, thus admitting 
60 physicians every week, and 2,460 during the clinical year of 21 
41 weeks. Is this “ ostracizing the profession” ? Certainly the 
operating room will accommodate a greater number than 15, but 
the operations are chiefly of such a character that a much greater 
number could not at the same time see all their minute details; 
and the Governors, in deciding the number, bore in mind the 
fact that all the Hospital staff could also be present at any oper- 
ation, and thus might increase the whole number to more than 
45. We have, however, no doubt that the Governors would now 
extend the limit to any number actually required, which does not 
essentially interfere with the welfare of the patients; nor that 
they would have left the whole matter to the discretion of the 
Medical Board, and not have made any limitation at all, had not 
Dr. Sims habitually overcrowded the operating-room, and habitu- 
ally declared that he would have as many at his operations as he 
pleased. We have never heard of any complaint of ostracism 
or illiberality excepting this by Dr. Sims; and never, in a single 
instance, since our connection with the Hospital, has a physician 
been refused admission to the operating-room who had been in- 
vited there by us. The “ ostracism ” and “ illiberality ” com- 
plained of never had any existence ; and that charge against the 
Board of Governors was merely the offspring of Dr. Sims’ dis- 
appointed insatiable craving for professional eclat. 
Dr. Sims, as the next topic, told the story of Dr. Peaslee’s 
friend, who was excluded from the operating-room after fifteen 
strangers had been admitted ; and essentially as reported in his 
pamphlet. 
The case was, however, colored to befit the occasion. Dr. 
Peaslee had not seen his friend, and, of course, had not invited 
him to the Hospital, at all, and only learned that he had been 
there after the operations of that day were completed. Any one 
whom he had invited for that day, would have been admitted 
whenever he presented himself. It had not, of course, occurred 
to Dr. Peaslee himself to make any complaint respecting the 
case thus taken up by Dr. Sims. 
Finally, in reaching the peroration of his speech, Dr. Sims 
ceased to misrepresent the Medical Board, and falling back en- 
tirely upon the ego,” he closed thus : “ I do not wish to leave 
this hospital—I should be very sorry to do so ; though, with such 
men remaining as ” (here followed a compliment to us, which 
we modestly believed to be ironical)—“ I should not be missed. 22 
But I will no longer remain in an institution where I cannot be 
treated like a gentleman myself, and treat my friends as gen- 
tlemen. And if you [the Governors] do not rescind the rules at 
your next meeting, my resignation is at your disposal.” 
Thus Dr. Sims volunteered to condition his longer sojourn in 
the Hospital solely upon the rescinding or non-rescinding of the 
two rules so obnoxious to him, by the Board of Governors at their 
next meeting. It was certainly a very silly thing to do, but we 
were in no way responsible for his folly, nor for its effects, im- 
mediate or remote. lie did not condition his sending his resig- 
nation upon their “ wishing it,” as represented in the pamphlet. 
Had it been so, he pretty certainly would not have sent it at all; 
certainly not, as he did not wish to leave the Hospital, till he had 
received official information from the Board of Governors that 
they “ wished it.” The reader will now understand why Dr. 
Sims afterwards writes Colonel Davis, “ I verbally tendered my 
resignation, and thus honor compelled me to send it in; ” i. e., 
after the first meeting of the Board had passed without the re- 
peal of the resolutions, Dr. Sims was bound by his word of 
promise to send in his resignation; and it was unanimously ac- 
cepted. 
Dr. Sims apparently overlooks the significance of the unani- 
mity of that action, when he accuses the Medical Board of not 
doing its duty to him by requesting the Board of Governors not 
to accept his resignation. But he knew perfectly well that any. 
such action by the Medical Board would not have secured 
non-acceptance of his resignation, when every member of the 
Board of Governors was in favor of its acceptance. Then why 
not visit his vengeance on the Governors, instead of us? Dr. 
Sims alludes (p. 1) to his “ almost expulsion,” and here he 
states a literal fact. lie had said in his speech, “ I have never 
heeded your edict, and I never will,” and when the question of 
accepting his resignation was before the Governors, Colonel 
Davis, as stated in his letter, moved that Dr. Sims be expelled 
“ for gross insubordination ; ” and out of regard to his feelings the 
vote to accep>t the resignation was passed as the milder alterna- 
tive. The fact was, as we thought, that the Board of Governors 
(and the Lady Supervisors) were quite tired of Dr. Sims’arro- 
gance, and therefore decided to allow it to terminate by the 
method Dr. Sims himself had adopted. As to ourselves, Dr. Sims 23 
was our colleague, and so long as he was so we were loyal to 
him, and would have so remained. 
Dr. Sims propounds three Questions. 
Dr. Sims closes his pamphlet with the three following ques- 
tions, paraded in a way to indicate that the inevitable replies to 
them must convict us of misrepresentation. In doing this he 
presumes altogether too much, we think, upon the stupidity of 
his readers. We had stated that the charge of “urging Dr. Sims 
to take a certain course and then meanly deserting him,” is un- 
qualifiedly false, since we had never urged him to any course 
(as Dr. S. also admits in his pamphlet), and had not deserted 
him, for he well knew that we could not sustain him. How Dr. 
Sims inquires : 
1. Was it “unqualifiedly false” for Mr. Stuart to write: 
“ Dr. Sims defended the honor and interests of the profession 
with such independence and zeal that he was forced unwillingly 
to resign his position as one of the surgeons ” ? 
We have shown (p. 17), although it does not at all concern 
11s, that Dr. Sims was not forced to resign because he defended 
the honor and interests of the profession, but because he said he 
would resign if the Governors, did not rescind the two rules ; 
and rescind them they did not. 
2. Did Mr. Stuart write what was “ unqualifiedly false ” when 
he said “ Dr. Sims was obliged to leave his (the) Hospital with- 
out a word of protest from the Medical Board ” % Certainly not. 
The Board as such made no protest, as we have explained on 
pp. 16 and 17. And what then \ 
3. Did Mr. Stuart write what was “ unqualifiedly false ” 
when he said that “ they, to a man, proved invisible in the hour 
of conflict ” ? This isolated statement is not in itself false, and 
we admitted this in our statement of May 5th. But the implica- 
tion it is intended to convey, of unworthy conduct on our part, 
is so, as Dr. Sims certainly by this time understands, if he did 
not when he put that question. Dr. Sims should not again “ deal 
in constructive interpretations of facts which may lead to wTrong 
conclusions.” 24 
We should, however, meet Dr. Sims’ ingenious effort to cast 
the responsibilities of the future conduct of this quarrel upon the 
shoulders of Mr. Stuart, with the remark that we have nothing 
at issue with that gentleman. We take no exception to what he 
lias done; for believing in Dr. Sims, he has stated what Dr. 
Sims told him were facts, sincerely regarding them as such. It 
is the author, and not the publisher merely, of such statements, 
whom we hold to account. 
Conclusion. 
Here ends our review of the manner in which Dr. Sims has 
done “his duty to himself, to justice, to truth, to honor, and to 
his profession,” and has fulfilled his promise to “ deal in no 
questionable inuendos, nor in constructive interpretations of facts 
which may lead to wrong conclusions.” 
Id taking our leave of this most distasteful subject—and of Dr. 
Sims—we repeat that all the charges of unworthy conduct on our 
part towards him as our colleague in the Medical Board of the 
Woman’s Hospital, which have been made by him in his 
pamphlet and elsewhere, are totally untrue ; or, to adopt the 
phraseology which his self-alleged superior education and training 
suggest (p. 2), they are all “ mistakes in policy and mistakes in 
facts.” Dr. Sims is simply realizing the legitimate results of his 
own headstrong folly. We endeavored, but in vain, to avert from 
him the consequences of his course of action, by early dissuading 
him from his opposition to the rules which led to that course. 
We can now only suggest to him a manly resignation to these 
consequences, instead of attempting to make us the scapegoats 
for their atonement. 
E. R. Peaslee, 
T. A. Emmet, 
T. G. Thomas. 
New York, Jane 25, 1877.