, TO THE 
V 
MEDICAL PROFESSION. 
Having recently seen a pamphlet containing a correspond- 
ence with Dr. F. M. Robertson and myself, in reference to a 
certain allegation he unnecessarily preferred against me at 
the late meeting of the American Medical Association at 
Charleston, I deem it a duty I owe to my reputation and the 
medical profession, to place the matter in its correct light, 
particularly with regard to the circumstances specified in Dr. 
Robertson’s letter of the 10th July. The publication of Dr. 
Robertson, so far as my own letters are concerned, is, I sus- 
pect, correct, with the exception of a few typographical errors. 
The reader will observe, by reference to that pamphlet, that I 
have proposed an arbitration of this matter repeatedly to Dr. 
Robertson, which he refused, and offered me only his author 
and the circumstances, when no man, apart from himself, was 
known to the profession as the author. If Dr. Robertson had 
have proposed to give me his author, and withdraw the charge 
upon my proving it false, I would have acceded, but he never 
for a moment suggested such a thing, until the 10th of July, 
and then I accepted. In reply to my acceptance I received 
his pamphlet, and subsequently the following letter, which 
acknowledges the acceptance. Dr. Robertson evidently mis- 
construed my anxiety to adjust the matter, into an inability 
for defence. 
Charleston, S. C., Aug. 2d, 1851. 
Dear Doctor:—The communication of Dr. II. A. Ramsay, 
of the 18th July, addressed to yourself, was placed in my hands after the publication of the correspondence in relation 
to my motive before the American Medical Association. 
The only point in Dr. Ramsay’s letter claiming any notice 
from me is, the surrender of my authority for what transpired 
at the meeting of the Georgia Medical Society. I have made 
every effort to ascertain who the Dr. Cooper alluded to is, and 
his residence, but have failed in so doing, and I now consider 
it just, in acordance with the declaration in my letter of the 
10th July, that my informants name would be given if neces- 
sary, to inform Dr. Ramsay, through you, that Dr. II. F. 
Campbell, of Augusta, was the delegate who informed me of 
what took place in relation to Dr. Cooper’s Report. 
The effort, first, to obtain information as to the residence of 
Dr. Cooper, will account for the delay in my reply. 
Yours, very sincerely, F. M. ROBERTSON, 
Dir. II. W. DeSaussure, 
Sec. A. M. As., Meeting-St. 
Why did Robertson print before he could possibly hear 
from me, if justice was his object ? I replied as soon as it 
came to hand, and accepted his own proposal—he jumped 
the fence and cried wolf! wolf! This was purity and 
fairness. 
Why, again, did he force the matter upon private circles, 
by sending his pamphlet to private gentlemen. My accept- 
ance of his own proposition should have suspended all proceed- 
ings. I offered to meet him in Augusta before any board 
of honorable men—I am o-eady yet to do it. 
Now I will put it to the calm judgment of any candid man, 
if it was fair in Dr. Robertson to assail me in my absence, and 
then propose a settlement simply by yielding his authority and 
circumstances, without a proposed withdrawal of the allegation, 
when I repeatedly invited him before a board of investigation. 
But as my object is a fair and candid statement of facts, 
destitute of personal epithets, and unjust denunciation, I will 
remark, that I am not a member of the American Medical 
Association, was absent two hundred miles, or near it, when 
the assault was made, and had not the least intimation it was 
intended, or in contemplation. As to Dr. Robertson’s authors, 3 
I can only pay, I know them—we live 18 miles apart; with 
his brother, Dr. J. J. Robertson, I have never had any pro- 
fessional intercourse; with Dr. Andrews, I have had very 
little, once in 1841, and once in 1844, I think, never more; 
to neither have I spoke for years; as to the extent of their 
practice, I know nothing, only so far as my own neighborhood 
is concerned, and here I am willing to let my neighbors speak. 
These gentlemen are not officially known to this controversy, 
to me they are in no wise amenable, and I shall use nothing 
offensive concerning them. In the conduction of this re- 
sponse, I shall observe a strict regard to decency and fair 
dealing, as to Dr. R. and evidence; the others I shall search 
truthfully, depending solely upon the justice of my cause to de- 
fend me. To obtain a thorough account of all the issues in- 
volved, the reader had best secure a copy of Dr. Robertson’s 
pamphlet, in connection with this. The curriculum of cir- 
cumstances, inducing Dr. Robertson’s attack, will be found in 
his letter of the 10th July, and to this it is my intention 
mainly to respond, as a careful perusal of both parties letters, 
antecedent to this, will sufficiently explain themselves. I will 
now subjoin Dr. Robertson’s letter, as forwarded to me by 
that excellent gentleman and disinterested mediator, Dr. De- 
Saussure. In commenting upon the letter, I shall confine 
myself strictly to the legitimate points, avoiding all allusions 
to unimportant matters, which easily disprove themselves. 
Prior to introducing the letter, I will inform the reader that 
I did deny the charge, in unmeasured and emphatic lan- 
guage, throughout the Union. I wrote to many medical 
gentlemen, I indited cards to several medical journals, some 
I suspended, others not, while some were refused admittance, 
for reasons purely impartial and satisfactory. After the 
reception of Dr. Robertson’s first note, and the mailing of my 
reply, I came to the conclusion, from its unconditional tone, 
there was no reasonable chance for a peaceable adjustment. 
I therefore wrote to Dr.’s Kinlock and Wragg in violent and 
abusive language, and without the slightest acquaintance 4 
with either. If I erred, by disregarding a social rule, Dr. 
Robertson is quite as amenable in attacking me without my 
acquaintance, in a wanton and flagrant manner, and that 
too behind my back. Having made this explanation, I will 
now descend to the material points in controversy, and here 
I shall give Dr. Robertson the full benefit of his letter, as I 
want nothing but justice and fair dealing. 
Charleston, S. C., July 10th, 1851. 
Dear Sir:—Since my note to you of the 28th ultimo, I 
have received two communications, through your hands, ad- 
dressed to yourself, from Dr. II. A. Ramsay—one dated June 
30th, the other July 4th. I am really at a loss to know what 
Dr. Ramsay desires. I concluded that my note of the 28th 
June, to you—and I have no doubt you have drawn the same 
inference—the receipt of which is acknowledged by Dr. Ram- 
say, had thrown the door, to a full and thorough investigation 
of the whole matter, wide open. You can well imagine my 
astonishment on finding him unwilling to meet the point at 
issue, on the only fair or proper grounds upon which it could 
be placed. If he has not demanded, and does not desire, as 
he states, either the authority or circumstances upon which 
my motion was made, then 1 am at a loss to know what is 
wanted, or what will satisfy Dr. Ramsay. 
It is evident, from the- tenor of Dr. Ramsay’s communica- 
tions to you, and his multitudinous letters to, and inquiries of, 
various other persons, that he wishes to make a purely per- 
sonal issue with me, without allowing the facts and circum- 
stances, upon which my action in the matter was based, to 
come before the public. In other words, there seems to be 
an instinctive dread, at the mere meeting of the authority 
upon which my motion was made, and which I have repeat- 
edly and freely tendered him through you. Hence, I am 
reluctantly constrained to infer, that a collateral issue is sought 
to be made, solely for the purpose of diverting attention from 
the true merits of the case. Now, Sir, this I do not intend to 
allow; and I will simply say to you, in reference to Dr. 
Ramsay’s personally abusive letters, written to numerous per- 
sons at the very time he was making overtures through you—- 
for I have never received a line from him directly—for an 
amicable adjustment, as he terms it, of the difficulty be- 
tween us, that nothing that Dr. Ramsay has said, or may say in relation to the matter, can be personally offensive or in- 
sulting to me. 
After what has transpired, I deem it due to you, as one of 
the Secretaries of the American Medical Association, to place 
a plain and candid statement of facts before you, leaving you 
free to make such disposition of the communication as you 
may deem proper. 
Soon after the delegates to the late meeting of the Ameri- 
can Medical Association in our city commenced to assemble, 
reference was made by some one—I do not now recollect 
who—in a casual conversation, to the obsterical statistics of 
Dr. H. A. Ramsay of Georgia—-I had not, up to that time, 
seen the tables referred to. Dr. Reyburn, the Chairman of 
the Committee on Medical Literature, stated that he had re- 
ferred to them in his report, and would like to have further 
and authentic information on the subject. I introduced him 
to Dr. J. J. Robertson and Dr. Andrews, of Washington, 
Georgia, who were in attendance as visitors to the meeting of 
the Association, though not delegates; and, subsequently, to 
other medical gentlemen from Georgia, who were delegates. 
The result of his conference with these gentlemen was a de- 
termination, on the part of Dr. Reyburn, to erase all allusion 
to the contributions of Dr. Ramsay from his report, before 
presenting it to the Association, which I understand was done. 
This occurred some days previous to the presentation of either 
the report of Dr. Reyburn, or that of Dr. Storer. 
From this time, the reliability of the statistics of Dr. 
Ramsay became the subject of free conversation among many 
members of the Association. It was ascertained from the 
gentlemen mentioned above, and some of the delegates from 
Georgia, that he had been a practitioner only about ten years, 
and not continuously in the same place. When the fact was 
considered, in connection with the number of cases reported— 
amounting, with the 200 of which no particular notes were 
taken, to 673—it struck many old and experienced practi- 
tioners as an unusually large number of cases for the first ten 
years practice, in a portion of country not densely populated, 
and in which there were the usual number of competitors for 
public patronage. For ten years practice, admitting that he 
was, immediately upon graduating, introduced into a general 
obstetrical practice—which is not the ease—would give an 
average of 67 cases, and a fraction over, per year; or an 
average of more than one case a week, for the entire ten 
years. If the cases comprised those which came under his notice in six years, this will give 112 cases, and a fraction 
over, per year; or an average of two, and a fraction over, for 
each week of the six years. This simple analysis, made by 
several persons in casual conversation on the subject, struck 
every one—and particularly practitioners from the country— 
with much force. One gentleman from Philadelphia re- 
marked that he had considered the statistics unreliable, upon 
reading them at the time of their publication, without knowing 
anything of the contributor, or the circumstances he had 
heard here. It was stated by many practitioners from the 
country, and by the gentlemen first named, who were per- 
sonally acquainted with Dr. Ramsay, and who practiced in 
the adjoining county—and frequently in Dr. Ramsay’s own 
neighborhood—that it was not generally customary to employ 
a physician in obstetrical cases among the blacks on the 
plantations, unless in cases of difficulty or apprehended diffi- 
culty ; and that it was by no means a universal custom to 
employ them among whites—many still adhering to the old 
custom of sending for the midwife. It was not a difficult 
matter for each to refer to his own experience in the practice 
of obstetrics for a series of years, or for any single year; and 
when they did, and then considered the number of cases re- 
ported by Dr. Ramsay, the length of time he had been in 
practice, the nature of the country and population in which 
he practiced, and the necessary interruptions occasioned by a 
removal from one location to another, the conviction seemed 
to be forced upon every mind, that the statistics carried with 
them the strongest in ter mil evidence of their unreliability, 
aside from any other considerations. Rut, further, I was in- 
formed by a member of the Georgia State Medical Society,* 
a delegate to the American Medical Association—whose name 
can be given if necessary—that at the annual meeting of that 
body, previous to the National Association in Charleston, Dr. 
Cooper read a report, by appointment, on obstetrics, and re- 
ferred to Dr. Ramsay’s tables, as authority for certain views. 
The next day he begged leave to retract what reference he 
had made to Dr. Ramsay’s cases, as he had heard they were 
not reliable. The permission to alter the report was granted. 
I have made the above statement to show you what had 
actually taken place in relation to Dr. Ramsay’s statistics, 
before the subject was brought before the Association, and 
that, too, in the Medical Society of his own State. 
*Dr Campbell. 7 
When Dr. Storer’s report on Obstetrics was read, on the 
afternoon of the 7th of May, it was found that the 
statistics in question had been incorporated in it. The 
following is an extract from the official report of the proceed- 
ings of the Association, contained in Yol. 6, No. 4, of the 
Charleston Medical Journal and Review, at page 576, and 
which is the only accurate and authentic report that I have 
seen: “ Dr. Storer, of Ms., Chairman of the Committee on 
Obstetrics, presented and read the report of the Committee. 
“ On motion of Dr. Robertson, of So. Ca., the report was 
recommitted, and made the special order for the morning ses- 
sion.” 
At the time of making the motion, I stated distinctly, that 
it was made to give the Chairman an opportunity of striking 
out the statistics of Dr. Ramsay, as it had been asserted, on 
the most undoubted authority,* that they were not reliable. 
I mentioned that the parties upon whose authority the motion 
had been made, were in the Hall, and the Chairman of the 
Committee would have an opportunity of conferring with them, 
and other gentlemen from Georgia, before he acted in the 
premises. Although there was a large delegation from Geor- 
gia, in attendance at the time, yet not one objected to the mo- 
tion, or uttered a word in defence of the statistics or the au- 
thor, although many of them were personally acquainted 
with Dr. Ramsay. Moreover, I have been since informed, by 
a member from Georgia, that the Georgia delegation held a 
conference in relation to the motion, previous to the final 
adoption of the report, and decided not to interfere in the 
matter. Among the delegates from Georgia, who were ac- 
quainted with Dr. Ramsay, were Doctors Ford, Garvin, and 
P. F. Eve, who were Professors in the Medical College at 
which Dr. Ramsay graduated. 
The above, sir, constitutes the authority upon which my 
motion to recommit was made. Under the circumstances, I 
considered it a duty which I owed to the Chairman of the 
Committee and the Association, to offer the resolution; par- 
ticularly as Dr. J. J. Robertson and Dr. Andrews were not 
delegates, and therefore could not do so ; although they both 
hold themselves responsible for the authority upon which it 
was made, and will cheerfully respond to any call which Dr. 
Ramsay may think proper to make on them. 
In the part which I have taken in the matter, I have been 
and Robertson. actuated by no personal feelings towards Dr. Ramsay, as I 
have no acquaintance whatever with him. With similar facts 
before me, in relation to the statistics of any other medical 
writer, I should have felt bound, as a member of the Associa- 
tion, to have pursued the same course. In making the mo- 
tion, on the authentic information which had been given, I 
have done no more towards inflicting an injury upon Dr. Ram- 
say, than those who assented, upon the same authority, to the 
erasure of his statistics—no more than Dr. Cooper, and the 
Medical Society of his own State, who requested, and was 
granted permission by the Society, to erase them from his 
report ; and I should be most happy to be informed of the 
code of Ethics that can deprive any body of medical men of 
the right to entertain and act upon such a motion under simi- 
lar circumstances. 
I have thus, I trust, placed the whole affair in a clear light. 
If you can be satisfied—-and I shall not require unreasonable 
evidence—that the authority upon which my motion was 
made, is unworthy of credit, and that I have been misinformed, 
I will most cheerfully make the amende honorable to Dr, 
Ramsay, in the most ample and public manner. In the fail- 
ure of this, however, I shall still feel convinced that Dr. Ram- 
say has no grounds for a complaint of injustice on my part. 
Yours, very sincex*ely, 
F. M. ROBERTSON. 
Dr. II. W. DeSaussure, Meeting-street, 
The reader will discover the preceding letter is entirely 
circumstantial, vague and contradictory, it fixes no point, 
and establishes no fact. This, apart from all other considera- 
tions, will satisfy consistent men, of the character and nature 
of the assault. The attempt of Dr. Robertson to divert at- 
tention from the true issues, by saying I wish to make a pure- 
ly personal matter with him, without allowing the “ facts and 
circumstances,” to come before the public, upon which his 
action was based, is lame and impotent, when it is recollected, 
and can be seen by reference to his own pamphlet, that in my 
notes of the 12th, 26th, and 30th of June, I invite him before 
a board of investigation. On the 4th of July I offered to 
leave it to Dr. DeSaussure alone. Was anything fairer l 
This, it strikes me, any man would have accepted, unless 9 
he was intently bent upon ruin and detraction. Dr. 
Robertson attempts to slide the responsibility upon his 
brother, Dr. J. J. Robertson, and Dr. Andrews, of Wash- 
ington, Ga., in doing so, he unintentionally, doubdess, 
convicts himself of being previously engaged in it, as his 
own letter abundantly exhibits. He says : “ Soon after the 
Delegates to the late meeting of the American Medical Asso- 
ciation in our city, commenced to assemble, reference was 
made by some one, I do not now recollect who—in a casual 
conversation—to the obsterical statistics of Dr. II. A. Ramsay, 
of Georgia. Dr. Reyburn stated he would like to have “far- 
ther and authentic information upon the subject.” It is evi- 
dent Dr. Robertson had made an attempt upon Dr. Reyburn, 
or he never would have said he “ wanted farther and authen- 
tic information upon the subject.” Dr. Reyburn was evident- 
ly incredulous from his remarks, and was introduced by Dr. 
F. M. Robertson to Dr. J. J. Robertson and Dr. Andrews, 
merely to give force to the previous attempts at detraction 
made upon Dr. Reyburn by Dr. F. M. Robertson. The re- 
sult, Dr. F. Robertson portrays in his letter. 
From this time, Dr. Robertson says, “ the reliability of the 
statistics of Dr. Ramsay became the subject of free conversa- 
tion. It was ascertained,” he says, “ from the gentlemen 
mentioned above, (Dr.’s Robertson and Andrews) and some 
of the delegates from Georgia, that he had been a practition- 
er only about ten years, and that not continuously in the 
same place. When this fact was considered, in connection 
with the number of cases reported, amounting, with the two 
hundred of which no porticular notes were taken, to 673, it 
struck many old and experienced practitioners as an unusual- 
ly large number of cases for the first ten years practice in a 
portion of country not densely populated and in which there 
were the usual number of competitors for professional patron- 
age.” 
The above quotation contains a palpable absurdity, entire- 
ly destitute offact. Dr. Robertson makes me amenable for 10 
two hundred cases, which I never reported, never claimed, 
and do not know from whence he derived his authority for 
them, as they are not to be found in the article he attacked. 
Again, he says 673 cases were considered extravagant for the 
first ten years practice, amid a thin population and where 
there was the usual number of professional competitors. 
Now I have never reported but 473 cases of premature and 
full births, (from 7th to 9th month) but simply thought I had 
had six hundred or more; I think so yet; but if I can es- 
tablish, according to Dr. Robertson’s analogy, that I have had 
no competition, and the country where I practice is densely 
populated, I, at once, establish that 673 cases were not an 
extravagant practice, particularly as I shall prove, that I have 
done a heavy midwifery practice all the while, with the ad- 
ditional fact, that I have been continuous in the same neigh- 
borhood. But Dr. Robertson makes a very simple analysis, 
—he discovers a “ mare’s nest"—unfortunately for him there 
is nothing in it. This calculation is correct, provided I had 
had the cases he gave me; but I beg leave to inform Dr. 
Robertson that I am not responsible for his figures, especial- 
ly when not backed by the potency of truth. The “ simple 
analysis” of Dr. Robertson yields an average of 67 cases per 
annum; when, in fact I only claim about 47 and a fraction. 
My article will speak for itself, here is the quotation : 
“ In the early part of my professional career, I carefully re- 
corded all my difficult obstetrical cases, leaving the simple la- 
bors to fare for themselves, hence the reader will find an aggre- 
gate of 473 cases only, when I am confident I have attended 
six hundred or more. This table exhibits all my recorded 
cases of every description from the 7th to 9th month.” 
From the above it will be seen that my simple list was not 
complete, that the table embraced my premature and mature 
labors, that I only claimed 473 cases, and thought I had had 
600. I have no reason to alter my opinion. By reference 
farther to the article, it will be seen that all my data, all my 
premises, conclusions, and deductions, were founded alone 
upon the 473 cases ; not the first idea promulgated, was de* 11 
duced from the six hundred I think I have had. The article 
will farther exhibit, that I only claimed for it an account of my 
own experience, and would pleasurably rectify any error that 
liad crept into it. Now it is impossible for any man in this 
country to keep a correct statistical record, only as to his 
own particular locality. When we remember, we have no 
means for the advancement of correct statistical knowledge 
in the South, we at once see how necessarily imperfect the 
general statistics of any man must be, and it is quite as im- 
possible for any man to prove his individual cases for any length 
of years. The death, removal of persons, and destruction of 
records, present insuperable barriers to such a proceeding. 
In my own case, I have a note book containing only the num- 
ber, presentation, &e., of my cases in Obstetricy, they 
amount in all, from the beginning, to September 1850, the 
time of writing my article, to 473 simple, complex, ancl 
instrumental cases, from 7th to 9th month. My Obstet- 
rical career began in 1838, I practised in 1839 and 1840, 
which can be easily ascertained by application to my 
friend and distinguished preceptor, Dr. Thomas F. Gibbs, 
Atlanta, Georgia. From the time of my graduation, to 
the time of writing my article, I had been in constant prac- 
tice ten years and six months; add to this my practice in 1838 
and 1839, and it will make an aggregate of nearly thirteen 
years; but, to be certain, say twelve years. If I had six hun- 
dred cases in this period, it would yield only fifty per annum, 
or not one a week for the whole time. My record counts for 
473 cases, embracing a period of about ten years; this will 
give me an average of 47 and a fraction per annum, or not 
one a week, and not four a month. I suspect many physi- 
cians in this State do sixty and seventy cases per annum. I 
have had four a day, and often eight a month, and in one 
instance twelve. Men who do none never think any one 
else does. This will leave me minus 20 cases per annum, 
according to Dr. Robertson’s calculation, and I would suppose 
I was at least the best evidence of my own cases, and the 
period embraced 12 
But to put the matter in a more tangible form, I hereby 
invite all honorable medical men to call and examine my 
record. The authority of Dr. Bobertson being entirely cir- 
cumstantial, I shall confine myself to the disproof of the cir- 
cumstances, without producing a voluminous record, and I 
opine I shall disprove them to the satisfaction of all reasona- 
ble men, and Dr. Robertson says “ he v/dl not require un- 
reasonable evidence.” 
Dr. Robertson says his simple analysis “struck every 
one—particularly practitioners from the country—with much 
force,” and one gentleman remarked that he considered the 
statistics unreliable, from reading them at the time of publi- 
cation, and he was from Philadelphia. The article was doubt- 
less ungenial to his sable heart, for it defended Southern ne- 
groes to the following effect: “we hazard nothing in saying the 
negroes of Georgia are better provided for, obstetrically and 
dietetically, than any other dependent class upon this conti- 
nent.” We aver it yet, in contradistinction to the tender 
feelings of the pallid faced, fanatical, and base automaton, 
who made the remark. This evidence proves, what Dr. 
Robertson doubtless expected—nothing—but a mere circum- 
stance, elucidative of what was put in motion by himself. But 
Dr. Robertson says it was stated by many practitioners “ from 
the country, and by the gentlemen first named, (Dr.’s An- 
drews and Robertson*) who were personally acquainted with 
Dr. Ramsay, and who practiced in the adjoining county, and 
frequently in Dr. Ramsay’s own neighborhood, that it was 
not generally customary to employ a physician in obstetrical 
cases among the blacks on the plantations, unless in cases of 
difficulty, or apprehended difficulty, and that by no means 
was it a universal custom to employ them among the whites.” 
In another place I have said I knew Dr.’s Andrews and 
Robertson of Washington. As I have prescribed a course 
for myself, I will adhere to it, as these gentlemen are not re- 
sponsible to me; Dr. F. M. Robertson having preferred the 
*(My brackets-). 13 
charge. Dr. Robertson, after stating the above specifi- 
cations, in connection with his prior charge of being in a 
thinly settled country, and me not living in the same place, 
says these facts seemed to carry conviction to every mind, of 
the icnreliability of my statistics, and in no other part 
of his letter does he allege another point to disprove 
them, except the State society farce. But, on the other 
hand, at every step of his letter, he dwells upon these circum- 
stances, and their “ authentic authority/’ as proof against my 
statistics, and in conclusion says, “ If I (he) can be satisfied— 
and I (he) shall not require unreasonable evidence,” that 
his authority is not incorrect, or that he has been misinformed, 
he will make ample amendment. I now propose to exhibit 
these facts to Dr. P. M. Robertson in the kindest, clearest, 
and most unquestionable light. It is amusing to behold 
Dr. Robertson in his voracious attempts to convict and immo- 
late me, only proving positively what I assert. He says Dr. 
Andrews and Robertson said it was not a universal practice 
to have a physician among the whites in obstetricy here. This 
is precisely what I said in my article, here is the quotation : 
“ A large majority of obstetrical cases among this class 
(blacks) are at the present day exclusively under the control 
of the physician, and I am happy to add, the white ladies of 
Georgia are fast falling into ranks.” 
Now no where in that article did I claim anything only 
so far as my experience went to confirm it. I never said it 
was a universal custom to send for a man midwife with either 
the blacks or whites. A thing may be customary, but this 
does not render it universal. It is a custom to rain, not 
universal, but occasional. The term universal means all, 
total, and I undertake to say there is no universal obstet- 
ricy in America. But I think now the obstetricy of this 
State is largely in the hands of professional men ; in this I 
may err, it is human, I claim no infallibility. This position 
is peculiarly true, so far as my own particular locality is con- 
cerned, as the following evidence will specifically establish, 
and it is from the most reliable sources in this country. 14 
There may be some places in G-eorgia where the obstetrical 
fee is so high among medical men, that the practice is confined 
to some extent to women, but these points are rare, I imagine, 
and dependent upon what I say. Here we attend for five 
dollars, and when we fail to get a case it is not from choice 
for a woman generally, but for the reason we can’t be had 
conveniently. The difficult practice is invariably done by 
physicians, and, we are sorry to say, there is much ignorance 
among medical men upon this subject. 
I will now introduce the following evidence to prove my 
position, and leave the reader to flounder as be may in the 
world of wonder, as to the causes of the singular display at 
Charleston. 
In presenting this testimony, I have regarded no particular 
system, the truth will out, and can easily be culled from the 
mass of evidence, without reference to order. 
GEORGIA, Wilkes County : 
This is to certify that I am intimately acquainted with Dr. 
Henry A. Ramsay, and equally so in his neighborhood, 
having been his former partner. I know that he did a heavy 
obstetrical practice up to 1851, and, judging from what I 
know of his practice and reputation, I would say his Report 
was a minimum not a maximum of his experience. 
This conclusion is founded upon personal observation of his 
practice—comparative results of my own—together with the 
fact that Dr. Ramsay has no midwife competitor, nor has 
had, of reputation ; nor has he ever, to my knowledge, had a 
professional competitor, independent of a partner ; and, far- 
ther, his neighborhood is thickly settled, prolific, and accus- 
tomed to send in simple and difficult cases for a professional 
obstetrician; and, again, his practice extends to the counties 
of Lincoln, Wilkes, and Columbia, and to my certain know- 
ledge he never moved from the neighborhood, prior to 1851; 
(Feb.) and if any physician or physicians from Washington 
ever had frequent calls to Dr. Ramsay’s neighborhood, I never 
kneiv it, or heard it. 
Given under my hand, July 26th, 1851. 
S. B. STOVALL, M. D. 15 
Canal, Fulton, Ohio, June 17th, 1851. 
Dr. Ramsay :—Dear Sir :—I have just received yours of 
the 8th inst., and as you request an immediate answer, I must 
necessarily be brief, as my professional engagements are, at 
present, pressing. 
I infer from a reference to the proceedings of the late 
meeting of the American Medical A ssociation held in Charles- 
ton, that Dr. Robertson’s attack upon your reputation for in- 
tegrity, was by reason of the chairman of the Committee on 
Obstetrics, incorporating your contribution in the same de- 
partment, in his report! If I am correct in this supposition, 
I can say, that having read your article as published in the 
Medical Examiner, Philadelphia, I had no reason then, 
nor since, to doubt its accuracy. The opportunities I had 
while in Georgia, of knowing personally, the extent of your 
field of practice, and having since that period, frequently 
learned from other sources, that your professional business 
had increased, I did not, think it necessary for you to draw 
upon imagination for the details you have given. From the 
relationship of preceptor and pupil, that existed between us 
from the spring 1841 up to the time you left Bookersville, I 
had no reason to suspect you guilty of fabricating. I have 
heard of physicians, ambitious of notoriety, manufacturing 
reports of cases for publication ; indeed, I have read articles, 
in some of our medical journals, that I considered as unrelia- 
ble as the absurdities of homoeopathy ; but I have no reason 
to pass any such judgment upon the several articles I have 
read emanating from your pen. 
In haste, LEWIS SLUSSER, M. D. 
The above gentleman is a very excellent practitioner of 
Ohio, a physician of talent and a contributor to the journals 
of the country. 
I will now introduce Dr. Hanson, an aged and highly dis- 
tinguished physician of Columbia county—now dead : 
GEORGIA, Columbia County : 
This is to certify that I have known Dr. Henry A. Ramsay, 
of Lincoln county, Ga., for a period of ten years, by reputa- 
tion and personal acquaintance. From his reputation as an 
Obstetrician, and from what I know of the comparative re- 
sults of such practice, founded upon an experience of thirty- 
five years, in this region, &c., I should deem his report not 
only probable, but if any error existed it was in his favor,, as 16 
to the number of his cases, &c. I farther state, I am inti- 
mate in the practice of obstetrics in this county, and am 
confident my practice in the same time has transcended Dr. 
Ramsay’s reported cases. From these facts I could not ques- 
tion his Report or Statistics. I will also state, that I am in 
the habit of visiting Dr. Ramsay, and speak much from per- 
sonal knowledge of his practice, and I do certify that I deem 
him, in all the relations of life, both honorable and reliable, 
and I speak knowingly. 
Given under my hand, July 3d, 1851. 
Attest, H. 0. Williams. WM. HANSON, M. D. 
I will now introduce Dr. Win. McLean, an honorable, 
talented, and excellent physician : 
My Dear Ramsay :—Please excuse me for not replying 
to yours of Monday’s date, but as I anticipated seeing you at 
Camp Meeting to-day, I felt easy on the subject. 
The queries which you submit in your letter I shall en- 
deavor to answer to the best of my knowledge and belief, 
and as our intimacy has been close, for a period of five or six 
years, my opportunities for judging are considerable. 
1. Questions. Would you consider 473 cases, from 7th to 
9th mo., (obstetricy) an extravagant midwifery practice for 
about 10 years, from what you know of my practice, and also 
from comparative results in your own. 
Answers. I would not. I know that your practice must 
have ranged many years over a hundred cases a year, because 
your reputation in that department of practice was of a very 
high order, besides your charges were reasonable, and I know 
that you had no one to contend with in such cases in all your 
section. My obstetrical cases will average about 30 per 
annum, but I have had considerable opposition to contend 
with, besides with a very questionable reputation to recom- 
mend me. It is very uncommon, and has been for a number 
of years, to send for any one else than a Doctor in such cases, 
and I think that you, as well as myself, attend to families 
negroes and all, whenever occasion offers. Since I com- 
menced the practice, two Old Grannies have moved off for 
lack of bread, and one still lingers here, but she is nearly 
supported by the bounty and generosity of Mr. Lockhart, and 
others in her locality. Expecting to hear from you soon, 
believe me, very sincerely, Your friend, 
WM. McLEAN, M. D. 
Double Branches, Lincoln Co., Aug. 1st, 1851. 17 
I will now present the evidence of Dr. R. Goodloe Harper, 
who came into this neighborhood, after my removal in Feb. 
last, as he states. Here it will be seen that Dr. Harper, who 
is only partially acquainted to the neighborhood, says, from 
the results of his practice here amid a new acquaintance, he 
would regard fifty cases per annum a moderate practice for 
this settlement, while my practice has been extended for 
miles around me, in the counties of Wilkes, Lincoln, and 
Columbia. Do these facts prove nothing! 
GEORGIA, Lincoln County : 
This is to certify that I came into Dr. Ramsay’s neighbor- 
hood after his removal in Feb., 1851 —found it densely pop- 
tdated; no competition professional or midwife ; and even 
now none save Dr. Ramsay. From the comparative results 
of my practice, and that incident to a new acquaintance to 
some extent, I would say fifty cases would be a moderate 
practice, per annum, for this settlement. 
Given from under my hand, this the 8th August, 1851. 
R. GOODLOE HARPER, M. D. 
Dr. 0 Tamil, who practised in Wilkes Co., Ga., and not 
far from me, who knew my neighborhood and practice, states 
to me, in a letter under date July 4th, 1851, as follows: 
Dear Doctor:—From the fact that the theatre of my 
practice was adjacent to yours, it is a matter of course that I 
should know something of the extent of your practice, and 
the position you occupy in the estimation of the public. I 
can bear you witness that your practice has been and is ex- 
tensive in both ordinary medicine and obstetrics, indeed I 
should say very extensive, the most so in my acquaintance. 
Judging from my own obstetrical cases, which were “few 
and far betiveen,” and still amounting to between ninety 
and a hundred, I have no hesitancy whatever in saying 
you had six times that number, nor would I discredit it if I 
had been told you had eight times, and I am quite satisfied 
every physician around you will concur with me in opinion. 
I do not remember ever seeing you without your having been 
very recently in a case, and ordinary report in your neigh- 
borhood gave intelligence to a like effect. 
Yours, Respectfully, 
JOHN O’FARRALL, M. D, 18 
After I had received the evidence of Dr. O’Farrall, I re- 
ceived Dr. Robertson’s exposition, and wrote him again, 
giving in detail the circumstances. As he says the following 
will exhibit his views, I will here remark, Dr. O’Farrall is my 
relative by alliance, and is not at all objectionable, when it 
is remembered Dr. J. J. Robertson is the brother of Dr. F. M. 
Robertson. 
Appling, July 20, 1851. 
Dear Doctor :—You stated in your letter of the 23d inst., 
that Dr. Robertson of Charleston had,made his motion in the 
Convention, that your obstetrical statistics should be discredi- 
ted, relying on the information given him to the extent of your 
practice, by Dr. J. J. Robertson, his brother, and Dr. An- 
drews of Washington, Ga., which information itself was de- 
rived from circumstantial evidence, which you mention, and 
which I say, those who gave it not only knew themselves, but 
were perfectly well aware, that everybody else in that part of 
the country knew to be egregiously erroneous. 
JOHN O’FARRELL, M. D. 
I will introduce the evidence of some of the most respectable 
and worthy gentlemen of this country,* who have known me, 
and the custom of the county, ever since I came into it. We 
presume they at least ought to know what they do, and what 
I have generally done. Upon this testimony alone I would 
willingly let the matter rest. 
GEORGIA, Wilkes County : 
This is to certify that Dr. Henry A. Ramsay has lived among 
us and in this vicinity since 1840 to 1851, inclusive, that he 
has done the practice of this county with great unanimity, 
that he has had no competitor during the period mentioned, in 
his neighborhood, (save his partners,) that he has done a heavy 
midwifery practice, our population being thick, and we have 
had no midwife of reputation among us, since 1841, conse- 
*As the evidence is so voluminous, I refer to the following gen- 
tlemen in Lincoln and Columbia counties : W. F. Strother, A. Sam- 
uels, J. L. Paschal, J. M. Cotlief, Jamieson Mabry, John Holli- 
day, 0. H. Walton, Asa Paschal, and Dr. W. A. L. Collins, an 
eminent practitioner of Columbia, county, offered me a certificate, which 
was not received when this went to press. If these cases were not reliable, 
they certainly could be proven so by somebody in my neighborhood, at 
least by Dr. Stovall, my partner, who was and is very intimate with me 
and my practice. If it is required, I will publish, at the house of Lindsay 
A Blakiston, Phila., an attested copy of the note book. 19 
quently professional aid was necessary in simple and difficult 
cases, from choice and necessity, as well as custom. We state 
farther that no physician or physicians from Washington to 
our knowledge, have been frequently in practice in Dr. Ram- 
say’s neighborhood, and we have known him and the neigh- 
borhood ever since he came into it. We know nothing against 
his credibility. 
Given under our hands, July 25th, 1851. 
FELIX SHANK, 
WM. WOODALL, 
MOSES HAM BRICK, 
W. D. HOLLIDAY, 
THOS. II. STROTHER, 
GEORGE SHANK, 
H. BUSSEY. 
GEORGIA, Wilkes County : 
This will certify that I was once in connection with the late 
Allen Holliday of this county, who made the proposition to 
Dr. Henry A. Ramsay to take the obstetrical practice of this 
neighborhood at the price of five dollars per case ; upon this 
agreement we stipulated to throw the practice of this neighbor- 
hood into his hands, which was heavy. Since then, Dr. Ram- 
say has done the practice of all classes, without reference to 
simple or difficult cases, in a large majority of cases, having no 
midwife or other competitor of any reputation, up to Feb., 1851. 
August 11th, 1851. DENNIS PASCHAL, Sen. 
I have now exhibited the evidence to a considerable extent, 
upon which my defence rests; let us see how it tallies with 
Dr. Robertson’s circumstances. Dr. Robertson said I had not 
been continuously in the same place—-I have proved I have ; 
he said my county was not densely populated—I have proved 
it is thickly settled ; he said I had the usual number of com- 
petitors—I have proved I have had none in medicine or mid- 
wifery ; he said it was not customary to send for Doctors in 
such cases with me—I have proved it was customary ; he said 
his authors practised frequently with me in iny own neighbor- 
hood—I have proved they have not.* If this is not satisfactory, 
* Dr. Stovall says my report is a minimum ; Dr. Ilanson also; Dr. 
O’Farrall avers so ; Dr. McLean thinks the practice not at all extrava- 
gant j Dr. Harper says likewise, if his results are averaged. This covers 20 
I would inquire, what is ? Dr. Robertson has given bis au- 
thority and the circumstances, I have disproved them by the 
pamphlet itself, and my neighbors and brethren who know 
me, and by them I am willing to be judged. As to the number 
of my cases, Dr. Robertson has not disproved them, while I have 
substantiated them as far as any man can prove his cases, and 
am ready to show my note book, if farther evidence is required. 
The circumstances alleged by Dr. Robertson, failing to exist, 
of course establishes my facts, and confirms my positions. As 
to the attack upon me at the State Society, I know nothing; it 
was conducted in secret conclave, until Dr. Robertson informed 
me, for which I thank him, as I am not a member. 
If it had not been for the exposition of Dr. Robertson, I 
would not have known it even now. This exemplifies the 
meanness and baseness of the transaction. The State Socie- 
ty does not contain more than a tithe of the medical men 
of the State, and they are pert boys and inexcusable 
ignoramuses, with some honorable exceptions. I am not 
surprised at the attack, when I know that any man who as- 
pires in the medical profession, is always the victim of perse- 
cution, detraction, and vituperation, and in no place does it 
exist to a greater extent than in the State Medical Society. In 
this filthy concern there are always plenty of suppliant tools, to 
do the dirty work of corruption and slander, and that in the most 
secret and scandalous manner. The Dr. Cooper referred to, I 
wrote to Dr. David Cooper of Powelton, and he refutes it as a 
calumny upon him. It was transmitted from Dr. H. F. Camp- 
bell, Augusta, Ga., to Dr. Robertson, and for aught I know he 
may be the author of Dr. Cooper. 1 am not sure of this.* 
all the ground, and clearly establishes—what Dr. Robertson never dis- 
proved by a single fact—my report of eases and statistics. These men 
know me and my practice. Then look at what my neighbors say. This 
evidence cannot ho gainsayed! Where then exists a cause for this diffi- 
culty, will any sane man show me ? 
* I have just hoard from one Dr. Cooper, of Perry, Gta., who proves to 
be the man. Ho says, in a note to me, Aug. 18th, 1851: “ Tam not 
allowed to give my authority." as he says it was not designed to make a 
disturbance or question my veracity. The profession can judge of the 
force of such an excuse. While Cooper relieves himself by saying his 
authority he is not allowed to give, he perpetrates, according to Dr. R., an 21 
A few other casual and collateral circumstances connected 
with Dr. Robertson’s pamphlet, demand a passing notice, and I 
have done with this uncalled for affair. 
Dr. Robertson says the only true and accurate account he 
has seen of the proceedings of the National Association, were 
published in the Charleston Medical Review. As I was absent 
I know nothing of this matter. I will here say Dr. Robertson 
is at issue with all whom I have addressed upon the subject. 
The report of many journals was quite different. But to put 
the question of reliability at rest, it being entirely a profession- 
al matter, I will bring forward the certificates of my brethren 
here, and if demanded I will adduce any number from private 
sources: 
Lincolnton, Ga., June 10th, 1851. 
This is to certify that I have known Dr. Henry A. Ramsay 
since 1845, and in our medical intercourse, I know of nothing 
to question his reliability or integrity. 
J. L. WILKES, M. D. 
GEORGIA, Lincoln County : 
This is to certify that I have known Dr. II. A. Ramsay since 
my first settlement in this county, (1845) have met him often, 
have had frequent professional intercourse with him, in all have 
found him to be a physician, and to the extent of my own 
knowledge, a man of reliability and integrity. 
Lincolnton, July 2,1851. J. M. MORAGNE, M. D. 
Dr. M. is a physician of fine reputation in Lincoln, as also 
Dr. Wilkes. The first stated to me up to this period (Aug. 
1st, 1851) he had had 35 or 40 obstetrical cases. 
absurdity. If this was not designed to affect my veracity, why erase it 
from your paper. This is a clear case of sheer contradiction. Who is 
guilty, I leave the reader to determine. The author refused, why so, if I 
can so easily bo ousted. Here is another evidence of the secret clique of 
assassination which existed at Atlanta, and Dr.’s Ford and Campbell 
were there ; while I am not even a member, and knew nothing of the 
rascally deed until Dr. Robertson tells me. Is this not enough to make 
honest men blush ! People of Georgia .judge of it. Recollect Dr. It. 
brings this up to question my cases and statistics, while Cooper says it was 
not designed to question my veracity. When Doctors disagree, who must 
decide ? There is a lie out, and I can’t say who told it. Cooper is evi- 
dently a trained steed. 
In my strictures upon the State Society, I design nothing for any friend 
or honorable man. (I speak of the Pigs and Puppies in note and pam- 
phlet.) If Ford and Campbell are innocent, they are excluded of course. 22 
GEORGIA, Lincoln County : 
I certify that I have known Dr. IL A. Ramsay, Raysville, 
Lincoln county, and have enjoyed his friendship and been fa- 
vored with his professional counsel for a period of years, that I 
have ever found him a gentleman of unquestionable integrity 
and strictly reliable in the most extended sense, both private- 
ly and professionally. 
WM. McLEAN, M. D. 
GEORGIA, Lincoln County : 
This is to certify I am practising in Lincoln county, and 
know Dr. II. A. Ramsay, and concur in the above by Dr. Mc- 
Lean to the full extent of my knowledge. 
Given under my hand, June 28, 1851. 
B. F. BENTLEY, M. D. 
GEORGIA, Lincoln County : 
This is to certify that I have known Dr. H. A. Ramsay since 
1847, and being located at a distance of seven miles from him, 
it has been my pleasure to have his counsel on some occasions, 
and have been highly pleased with him in the profession and 
out of it, and look upon him as being honest in the profession, 
as well as every thing else, 
June 28, 1851. JOHN M. JENNINGS, M. D. 
GEORGIA, Lincoln County : 
This is to certify that I have known Dr. Id. A. Ramsay of 
this county for several years, prior and since, my coming into 
the profession, and I have no right to call in question his pri- 
vate or professional reliability or integrity. 
Given under my hand,- July 2d, 1851.' 
J. P. M. McCORD, M. D. 
GEORGIA, DeKalb County : 
This is to certify that Dr. H. A. Ramsay, of Lincoln coun- 
ty, was my pupil, and practised medicine with me. 1 have 
known him through the various gradations of life, infancy, boy- 
hood and manhood ; I know him well and thoroughly, and I 
have no hesitancy in saying he is both truthful and reliable 
in or out of the profession. 
Given under my hand, this 14th July, 1851. 
Atlanta, Ga. THOS. F. GIBBS, M. D. This is to certify that I have known Dr. H. A. Ramsay 
for two years past, both privately and professionally, having 
often spent several days at his house, and have ever found 
him a perfect gentleman—a gentleman whose character is 
above suspicion, and whose integrity and responsibility could 
never be questioned by those favored with his acquaintance. 
As for his professional attainments, I hold them in the high- 
est estimation, believing, as I do, that he has no superior of 
his age in Georgia, and no one stands higher in his profes- 
sion as a gentleman o£ honor. 
D. S. CHASE, M. I). 
Augusta, June 21st, 1851. 
The last point in Dr. Robertson’s pamphlet I shall notice, 
is his attempt to vindicate his attack by intimating the Geor- 
gia Delegation assented to it. It is true the part of the 
Georgia Delegation that met acted in a strange way, but 
there were some of them who were innocent and just, viz: 
Dr.’s Paul F. Eve and Garvin, whom Dr. R. implicates. Let 
them speak for themselves. Dr. Paul F. Eve writes me, 
under date June 6th, 1851 : 
“ I know nothing, save from rumor, what was said or 
done.” 
Dr. Garvin, who was not a Professor when I graduated, 
writes me : 
“ I was neither present when Dr. Robertson brought the 
matter before the Convention, nor at any meeting our Dele- 
gates may have held.” 
Dr. R. D. Moore writes me, under date July 29th, 1851 : 
“So far as I know, the Delegation had no action at all 
upon the subject. 
Dr. Moore says, farther, to me, he did not wish to be 
considered as assenting to the charge. The facts prove cer- 
tainly that a portion of the Delegation knew nothing of the 
'* Dr. T. B. Phinizy, Augusta, Ga., a delegate, lenew nothing of tho 
secret assassination clique, and condemned the course as he beard it. 
How many more in Georgia, I know not. To these gentlemen I tender 
my hearty thanks for their justice. I wrote one Dr. Ford to know what 
he knew or done, but he is as dumb as an oyster. Lewis where art thou ! 
Be honest, be just, and tell, no harm is wished you; I want only fairness 
and peace. affair, and could not have assented. The'affair is one of un- 
paralleled, persecution—it is the worst and most flagrant case 
of secret professional assassination now upon record. The 
most menial and foul means were resorted to, and that under 
the sanction of a part of the Georgia Delegation. I put it to 
any honorable man, if it was just in the Georgia Delegation 
clique to take any action at all, unless I was permitted a hear- 
ing. Was it fair to arraign, condemn, and execute me, in my 
absence, and that toowithout the privilege or chance of defence? 
The red man of the forest, in his wigwam, would have 
extended me more justice. The barbarian Arab, amid the 
arid sands of his desert home, would have treated me better, 
and extended more equity and respect. As to the motives 
which induced the American Medical Association to inflict 
such an injury, upon such unsatisfactory testimony, I have 
nothing to say. 
The profession will judge of this matter, and assure itself 
that the reputation of no man is safe, if such a proceeding is 
to rule. My article had been favorably received; my 
star bid fair to rise; to do it would retard some one else; 
the fact was, I must be put down, and that regardless of the 
means resorted to; hence the attack, and the collateral 
measures. The cry was down with him at all hazards, 
and all events. When I review this transaction, I can only 
exclaim, “ Oh shame, where is thy blush ! ” 
I have now done. I have proven, by the most irrefragible 
testimony, that Dr. Robertson’s circumstances do not exist, 
and consequently I certainly establish my statistics, and 
their reliability. If I have done Dr. Robertson any injustice, 
I now stand ready to rectify it in the most ample and amica- 
ble way. With me the scene closes, and I would suggest 
to Dr. Robertson that trite old maxim, “mind your own 
business ” hereafter. 
H. A. RAMSAY. 
Raysville, Ga., August, 1851.