letter from prof, palmer 
ON THE 
HOMEOPATHIC COMPLICATION 
In the University of Michigan. 
(From the Peninsular Journal of Medicine.) 
Messrs. Editors. — I reluctantly ask for a space in your 
journal for a personal statement of my own relations to the un- 
fortunate homoeopathic complication in the University, and for 
a short reply to various misapprehensions and unjust criticisms 
respecting the “ statement” of the faculty as to the relations of 
homoeopathy to the department of medicine and surgery. 
Neither your space nor my time will at present allow of more 
than a partial presentation of the facts of the case, reserving for 
the future, should occasion demand, a more full consideration 
of the whole subject. 
In the first place, I wish to say, what all familiar with the 
facts know, that ever since the subject of the introduction of 
homoeopathy into the University has been agitated, I have uni- 
formly and firmly opposed it and everything which I thought 
might lead to it—and I have especially opposed with more vehe- 
mence than many of my friends thought judicious, any relations 
of this system to our medical school. Besides my own personal 
opinions and feelings respecting the system, I have known how 
deep was the general feeling of our profession against it, and 
how intolerant that profession would be of even the remotest 
relations with it. I knew full well of the “souvreign and im- 
mitigable contempt,” as Dr. Gross expresses it, of “ every mem- 
ber of the regular profession” for the system and organization of 
homoeopathy. I knew of the excitement which its establishment 2 
at the seat of the University would produce, of the occasion it 
would give for rival schools to excite opposition to us; I knew 
of the mortification which would follow to our alumni and our 
friends. I knew of the disturbance of our peace ; of the proba- 
ble withholding of support and patronage on the part of some. 
I knew how any ultimate association would ruin the school we 
had been so successful by long years of labor in building up ; 
and hence, in the interests of advanced medical education, in 
the interests of our alumni, in the interests of the University in 
general, and especially in the interests of the medical depart- 
ment, this opposition has been kept up. My aversion to the 
whole thing has never abated, and is felt at the present moment 
as strongly as ever before. 
The history of the act of the legislature and of the resolutions of 
the Board of Regents establishing the homoeopathic college, so far 
as my relation to it is concerned, is briefly told. Sometime in 
February or early in March, 1875, I visited Lansing and con- 
versed with several members of the legislature on the subject of 
homoeopathy in the University, and respecting the bills for the 
establishment of a mixed Board of State Censors; expressing 
my opposition to the latter project while I was assured by the 
friends of legitimate medicine in that body that there was no 
danger of the medical department being in any way embarrassed 
by any legislation, connecting us in any way with homoeopathy; 
that if any thing was done it would be to establish an entirely 
separate school in some other part of the State, and from the 
general tone of feeling I observed there, I rested firmly in the 
conviction that the medical department would not be disturbed. 
Not long after this, a meeting of the medical faculty of the 
University was called to consider whether any action could be 
taken in reference to the homoeopathic question. A free discus- 
sion was held, and as usual, I strenuously opposed any action 
looking toward the remotest relation with it. Indeed no defi- 
nite action was by any one proposed, and the general expression 
was as usual averse to any connection with it however remote. 
This was all that occurred in the faculty of which I had any 
knowledge up to the middle of April, when I left for Maine, not 
returning to Michigan until the latter part of July. For a knowl- 
edge of what occured in the Legislature, in the Board of Re- 
gents, and in the faculty on this subject, during this interval, I 
am dependent upon the public records and the statements of 
others. 
From these records I find the bill authorizing the Regents “ to 
establish a Homoeopathic College, as a branch or department of 
said University, which shall be located at the city of Ann Arbor,” 
was approved April 27, 1875. The resolutions of the Regents 
establishing the details of this “ branch or department,”—the first 
resolution being “ that a Homoeopathic Medical College be 3 
established in the city of Ann Arbor,” was passed May n, 1875, 
and the first knowledge or intimation I had of such action as 
had occurred was by means of a letter from Dr. Sager stating 
some of the features of the action, but expressing no definite 
opinion as to its character or effect. I answered the letter, dep- 
recating the arrangement in the strongest terms, expressing my 
surprise and chagrin, and about the same time wrote to the Pres- 
ident of the University, who is also President of the Board of 
Regents, expressing at still greater length my surprise, my ob- 
jections and regrets; but saying as the act was accomplished and 
could not at the present be reversed, I felt it my duty to stand 
by my post, so long as my liberty of expression on the subject of 
homoeopathy was not interfered with, and so long as I was not 
called upon to associate in any professional way with homoeo- 
paths, or to recommend as fit for practitioners or for professional 
association homoeopathic students. I was assured that no re- 
quirement of the kind would be made, and none has been, 
while my liberty of expression has in no way been abridged. 
I have performed my duty to the medical class as heretofore, 
teaching what I believed to be the true principles of medical 
science, and opposing, as I thought the truth and circumstances 
required, any views which I regarded as erroneous or absurd. 
This is the exact history of this affair so far as I am personally 
concerned; and whoever contradicts directly or by implication 
any of these material statements, contravenes the truth. 
I should not have deemed this account necessary had not ef- 
forts been made, at least by implication, to produce other im- 
pressions. 
In considering the course and responsibility of the faculty, it 
should be borne in mind that the University of Michigan, or its 
Medical Department, is not a private institution under the con- 
trol of its faculty, but that it belongs to the State, and is under 
the control of the people through their representatives, the 
Legislature and the Board of Regents. The members of the 
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, while maintaining their posi- 
tions as public servants, are bound by the authorities and the 
laws which are above them. Their only means of escaping from 
what this authority decides, is by resignation. Should anything 
be demanded of them which they regarded inconsistent with 
their honor or their duty to the profession, they would doubtless 
resort to this alternative. But no such demand has, in their esti- 
mation, been made; and to abandon their positions in the absence 
of such demand, would be, without justifiable cause, to turn the 
University over to the unopposed promulgation of a system of 
absurdity and folly. This, they are confident the profession 
would not justify them in doing, and this their own sense of duty 
has not allowed them to do. 
It should also be understood and remembered that the mem- 4 
bers of the faculty were scattered, many of them being away at 
their summer’s work or vacation during these events, and were 
not all together until near the opening of the college in October; 
and as the commencement of the session approached, and nu- 
merous enquiries as to the relations of the new department were 
pouring in, those who were on the ground considered it their 
duty, in justice to the Legislature, the Board of Regents, the col- 
lege and themselves, to put forth a statement of the facts just as 
they existed, without prejudice or concealment, to declare their 
own irresponsibility in the matter, and leave it for the authori- 
ties, the profession, and the public to judge and act as they 
should see fit. This is the record the faculty, as a body, have 
so far made, and by. it they must be judged. 
A few words in regard to the “ Statement of the Relations of 
the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery to Homoeopathy ” : 
Although this statement, after proper examination and dis- 
cussion received the approval of all the faculty, who were in 
Ann Arbor at the time of its preparation (Drs. Ford and Dun- 
ster alone being absent), and was put forth by their order 
and on their behalf, yet it was written by myself, and for it I 
am quite willing to take the full responsibility, as nothing was 
put into it contrary to my wishes, It is true that some of the 
facts stated were derived from the testimony of others, but I 
have yet to learn that such testimony was incorrect, and I now 
with a full sense of personal responsibility,unhesitatingly declare 
that every paragraph, every sentence and every word, so far as I 
know and believe, is literally, strictly and exactly true. 
The first proposition in the statement, which so far as I know, 
has been assailed, is, that the faculty had no responsibility in the 
enactment of the law of the legislature or in the establishment of 
the details by the Board of Regents. On this point, my knowl- 
edge is not personal, except so far as relates to myself, as I was 
in a distant State during the whole affair, but there is no record 
of faculty action assuming any such responsibility, and I am 
assured by my colleagues that no such responsibility was as- 
sumed; and this, together with the positive assertion of Regent 
Rynd, who was chairman of the committee of the Regents which 
had the matter in charge, must be considered as conclusive. It 
is true, as I am informed, that the portion of the faculty, who 
were in Ann Arbor, were called to meet the chairman of the com- 
mittee to have the plan of organization of the Homoeopathic Col- 
lege presented, and to hear what might be said respecting it. 
From this meeting, Dr. Sager, who was then Dean of the 
faculty, for reasons of which I have never been informed, ab- 
sented himself—or if the expression be preferred, was in town, 
had notice of the meeting, but was not present. At this meeting 
composed chiefly of the younger members of the faculty, three of 
the older members Drs. Sager, Ford and myself, being absent, all 5 
but Dr. Sager, out of the State, those present had this matter, as 
they state, sprung suddenly upon them, had not time for mature 
reflection, and in the absence of so many of the faculty chose 
to take no responsibility respecting what they regarded as a 
foregone conclusion, and neither assented to or dissented from 
the proposed action. That they did not dissent, some of them, 
I am authorized to say, now regret. But for this or any other 
individual conduct, these gentlemen are fully competent to 
answer for themselves, should they deem it necessary so to do. 
The President of the Board of Regents, informs me that Dr. 
Sager’s objections to the plan of the Regents, if he then had any, 
were not known to the Board till so long after their action upon 
it that he was much surprised that any objections were enter- 
tained by him. 
The next item in the “ statement” of the faculty to which ex- 
ceptions have been taken, is that in which it is averred that “ the 
diplomas to be granted are different in title and character— 
those of the homoeopathic students are to be designated as 
Homoeopathic; the names of none of the faculty of the depart- 
ment of Medicine and Surgery are to go upon them, and of 
course the names of the faculty of the Homoeopathic College 
are not to go upon those of the other departments.” This is 
simply and literally true. But it is objected that the inference is, 
that the diplomas are to be signed as heretofore. This is not so 
stated, and is not a necessary inference. The Regents, it is 
true, made a provision for having all diplomas of the University 
signed officially by the President and Secretary of the Board 
alone, but I had reason to believe that there would be no objec- 
tions to the members of our faculty placing their names on the 
diplomas as a sign of their approval of the degree, and as com- 
mending the candidate to the profession; and members of the 
Board of Regents have expressed their entire willingness that 
the names of the faculty should be placed upon the parchments ; 
and it is expected they will be so placed. Where, then, is the 
misstatement in this 1 
But the most serious charge of misrepresentation is in regard 
to the following: “The faculty of the College of Medicine and 
Surgery does not recommend for graduation, and has no responsi- 
bility whatever in sending forth or licensing to practice (as was 
to have been done by the mixed board proposed by the State 
Society), homoeopathic students, or testifying to their fitness to 
become members of the medical profession.” 
This too is simply true. The Medical Faculty does not reco7n- 
mend them for graduation. The Dean of the Homoeopathic Faculty 
does that by the express terms of the resolution of the Board. 
The Faculty of Medicine and Surgery does not send them forth. 
The Board of Regents does that. The license to practice is in 
the Diploma and the Regents confer that—and in no sense and 6 
in no way does the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery testify to 
their fitness to become members of the Medical profession. They 
are prepared to testify at any time and anywhere that men pro- 
fessing to believe the absurd dogmas of Homoeopathy, are in their 
judgment, not fit to become members of the medical profession. 
Where then is the incorrectness of this statement, except in the 
prepossessed imagination of our accusers ? 
It is not said that none of the faculty teach these men certain 
branches, and certify to their proficiency or want of proficiency 
in such branches. On the contrary, in the very next sentence it 
is stated that such teaching does occur, and that such certificates 
are to be given, and no attempt is made to deny any responsibility 
which such teaching involves. The Professors of Anatomy, 
Chemistry, Surgery and Midwifery do lecture to these men, and 
I suppose will examine them, if so be that any shall come for- 
ward for examination, and will certify to their qualifications in 
these branches; but I am most happy to say that my colleagues 
are not asked to intimate “that these students are qualified to 
practice medicine or to be proper professional associates of 
medical men.” I presume they would not do so if asked. 
The students of the Dental College attend the medical lec- 
ture. and are instructed by the medical professors, but these 
professsors do not pretend to judge of their qualifications as 
dentists, and take no responsibility in sending them forth as 
practitioners of that art. 
But a great quibble (for no better term can distinguish it) has 
been made respecting the use of the word privilege as applied to 
the homoeopathic students attending the lectures in the De- 
partment of Medicine and Surgery. The resolution of the Board 
making the arrangement, says, the homoeopathic students “ shall 
be entitled to all the privileges accorded to students in the Medi- 
cal Department” respecting “ instruction ” in the branches not 
provided for in the Homoeopathic Medical College; and follow- 
ing the language in the resolution of the Board, the President of 
the University who maybe supposed to know the force and pro- 
priety of words, uses the term privilege in his official report on 
this very subject in precisely, the sense it is used in our “ state- 
ment.” From our point of view, and from every point of view 
it was a privilege granted to the students of the Homoeophthic 
College to attend the instructions in another department, but this 
privilege entailed obligations which in the “statement” were 
indicated. If anything could demonstrate the weakness of the 
criticism on the “ Statement ” it would be a petty verbal quib- 
ble such as this. 
I have chosen to make this reply to assailants entirely imper- 
sonal and have avoided impugning the motives of any ; but I 
must now say that whoever hereafter, in the light of the subject 
as now presented, shall continue without recantation any state- 7 
merits or insinuations of misrepresentations in the “ statement ” 
of the faculty, certainly on the points alluded to (and these are 
the chief and the only ones requiring attention) must be con- 
sidered a false accuser. 
In thus defending myself and my colleagues from unjust ac- 
cusations, it is farthest possible from my intentions to take issue 
with those who would inaugurate any judicious movement for 
the removal of the relations with homoeopathy which actually 
exist. That both the Legislature and the Regents, with doubt- 
less the best of intentions, made a grave mistake in establishing 
these relations, is my most firm conviction; and that both will 
see the error and hasten to rectify it, is my most ardent wish. 
Opposed as the arrangement seems to be by a large portion of 
the homoeopaths, and obnoxious as it certainly is to the great 
body of our own profession, the experiment having thus failed 
to give satisfaction to any, have we not ground to hope that as 
soon as it can be accomplished, the complication we deplore will 
be effectually removed % 
Truly yours, 
A. B. PALMER.