THE 
ORLEANS INFIRMARY 
MAD THE 
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 
OF NEW ORLEANS. 
“Dat veniani cords, vexat censura columbas 
NEW ORLEANS: 
Printed at the “COMMERCIAL BULLETIN,” 112 & 114 Poydras Street. 
1869. T H E 
ORLEANS INFIRMARY 
AND THE 
i 
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 
OP NEW ORLEANS. 
“Dat remain cor e is, vexat censura columbas.” 
NEW ORLEANS: 
Printed at the “COMMERCIAL BULLETIN,” 112 & 114 Poydras Street. 
1869. The following correspondence between tlie “Orleans 
Infirmary” and the “Medical Association of New 
Orleans” is submitted to our professional brethren for their 
very careful consideration and unprejudiced judgment. 
The recent action of the American Medical Association, 
which points towards the ultimate proscription of every form 
of Medical Specialism whatsoever, is fraught with the gravest 
consequences to all who acknowledge its authority and who 
are interested in the legitimate progress of American Medi- 
cine. The time is near at hand when everyone will be called 
on to make up his judgment and record his convictions on 
this question, and the following pages may, therefore, not be 
wholly useless in aiding others to arrive at a reasonable 
decision. 
If private Infirmaries cannot be established, nor the treat- 
ment of Special Diseases undertaken therein, nor tlie existence 
of such institutions decently advertised, without furnishing 
an excuse for the suggestions of malice and incurring the 
weight of professional condemnation, then, the sooner we re- 
model our entire system of education and practice, the better. 
America has already taught the old world liberalism in 
statecraft, honesty in finance, and modesty in conduct; it only 
remains for her to illustrate in medicine, as she lias done in 
every other department, her latest discovery in sociology, that 
special training is always a positive injury, and that the best 
qualification for correct practice in one branch of science is a 
commendable ignorance of all. 2G1 Camp Street, June 3d, 18G9. 
To the President and Council of the Medical Association of N. 0. 
Gentlemen:—I beg to enclose for your consideration the 
within handbill. 
As we have adopted for our Code of Ethics that of the Ameri- 
can Medical Association, I wish an investigation and enquiry 
made as to whether the within handbill is or is not in accordance 
with Section 3, Art. I., of the chapter on the duties for the sup- 
port of Professional Character. I would also ask whether if I 
issue a handbill calling attention to the fact that I devote parti- 
cular attention to a certain speciality, 1 would be regarded as 
violating the Code of Ethics of the Association. 
I remain, very respectfully, 
(Signed) I. L. Crawcour. 
P. S.—May I request that after the investigation is concluded 
the within handbill be returned to me. I. L. C. 
Hall of the Medical Association of X. Q, 
Special Meeting of tlie Council, June 9, 18G9. 
A communication addressed to the President and Council of 
the Medical Association of New Orleans, by Hr. Crawcour, a 
copy of which is herewith enclosed, was opened and read in the 
presence of nine members of the Council, when the following 
resolution was unanimously adopted : 
Resolved, unanimously by the Council, that Dr. Crawcour’s letter 
is considered equivalent to a charge that Drs. Brickell, Beard, 
Choppin and Bruns have (in regard to a handbill, dated 18G9, pur- 
porting to have been issued and signed by them), violated the 
Code of Ethics of the Medical Association of New Orleans, and 
that this resolution shall be appended to the copy of Dr. 4 
Crawcour’s letter, to be transmitted by the President to these 
members. 
It is my duty, in accordance with the rules and regulations of 
our Association, to “demand your defense, in writing to the 
Council of the Association.” If you require it, I will serve a 
notice upon each member separately. 
Very respectfully, &c. 
(Signed) B. H. Moss, 
Pres. Med. Ass'n of V. 0. 
To Drs. Brickell, Beard, Choppin and Bruns. 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Canal Street, 
June 10th, 1809. 
To the President and Council of the Medical Association of X. 0. 
Gentlemen:—In an order of your Council, dated June 9th, 
addressed to ns collectively, you state that— 
“ A communication, addressed to the President and Council 
of the Medical Association of New Orleans, by Dr. Crawcour, 
(a copy of which is herewith enclosed) was opened and read in 
the presence of nine members of the Council, when the following 
resolution was unanimously adopted: 
Resolved, unanimously by the Council, that Dr Crawcour’s 
letter is considered equivalent to a charge that Drs. Brickell, 
Beard, Choppin and Bruns, have (in regard to a handbill, dated 
18G9, purporting to have been issued and signed by them,) 
violated the Code of Ethics of the Medical Association of New 
Orleans, and that this resolution shall be appended to the copy 
of Dr. Crawcour’s letter to be transmitted by the President to 
these members. 
It is my duty, in accordance with the rules and regulations of 
our Association, to ‘demand your defense, in writing, to the 
Council of the Association.’ If you require it, I will serve a 
notice upon each member separately.’’ 
(Signed) B. II. Moss, M. D., 
Pres, of the Med. Ass'n of A. 0. On referring to the accompanying letter of Dr. Crawcour, a 
copy of which you send us, we are surprised to find: 
First—That he only wishes an investigation and enquiry made 
as to whether the within handbill is or is not in accordance with 
Section 3, Art. I., of the chapter “on the duties for the support 
of Professional Character.” 
Upon very careful examination of the “Rules and Regulations 
of the Medical Association of Xew Orleans,” we find nothing 
which forbids any fellow asking any question whatsoever of the 
Council, nor any clause which interdicts their answering such 
questions as they see fit; but, we nowhere discover in said rules 
and regulations, any authority for the Council’s construing such 
questions as charges against fellows in good standing, upon 
which they, the Council, can “demand” a defense. 
On the contrary, in Art. XVI., Section 1, it is distinctly, ex- 
plicitly and authoritatively enjoined that “charges must be 
specifically stated in writing, over the signature of the fellow, 
or fellows, making them.” 
We, therefore, respectfully deny your right to arraign us on a 
constructive interpretation of Dr. Crawcour’s interrogatory, and 
refuse to plead to any “ demand of our defense,” in writing or 
otherwise, until some charge is “ specifically stated.” 
Second—Dr. Crawcour enquires of your Council whether if he 
were to “ issue a handbill, calling attention to the fact that he 
(I) devotes particular attention to a certain speciality, he (J) 
would be regarded as violating the Code of Ethics of the Asso- 
ciation?” 
This interrogatory, we respectfully submit, is simply personal, 
and in the connection in which it stands, almost unintelligible. 
It certainly does not contain any charge against us, even by 
implication, and we dismiss it therefore without comment. l)c 
non apparent Urns ct de non cxistentihus eadem cst ratio ! 
At the regular meeting of the Association, held June 2d, when 
Dr. Crawcour attempted to arraign us before the fellows, in the same terms and after the same method which he has used in his 
letter, your honorable President decided that he was “ out of 
order,” and instructed him that his charges must be specifically 
stated according to the rules laid down in Art. XVI., which he 
then read to him. Dr. Crawcour, however, has again failed to 
comply with the laws of the Association and the ruling of the 
President, and until, in accordance with both, lie brings a specific 
charge, we shall have no defense to offer. 
But we wish it, now and always, to be distinctly understood 
that we are not only ready but anxious, at all times, to meet any 
charge brought against us, in forma, by any fellow whomsoever. 
In adhering to the letter of the rules and regulations of the 
Association, our demand for a strict construction of the same 
is made purely in the interest of the members of that body, any 
one of whom may some day find himself, as we now do, if such 
laxity obtains, called upon to answer the gravest charges, 
insinuated in the most vague, disingenuous and irresponsible 
manner. 
We have the honor to be, very respectfully, 
Samuel Choppin, 
C. Beard, 
D. Warren Brickell, 
J. Dickson Bruns. 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Canal Street, 
June IGtli, 18(59. 
To tlic Council of the Medical Association of New Orleans : 
Gentlemen :—By your official communication of the 9th inst., 
we are under charges of violation of the Code of Ethics of the 
Medical Association of New Orleans, at the hands of the Council. 
In the Rules and Regulations of the Association, we find— 
First—That a fellow under charges is not in “good, standing.” 
Second—No authority for the Council to bring charges against 
any fellow. Under the circumstances it becomes our duty, for ourselves 
and for the good of the Association, to respectfully demand, the 
withdrawal of your communication of 9th inst. 
Very respectfully, 
Samuel Choppin, 
C. Beard, 
D. Warren Brickell, 
J. Dickson Bruns. 
[Copy of a communication from Dr. Crawcoui’, addressed to the President 
and Council of Medical Association.] 
2G1 Camp Street, June lGth, 18G9. 
Dr. Moss :—Dear Sir—I beg to acknowledge tlie receipt of 
your favor of tlie lGth inst. 
In reply, I beg' to state that I charge Drs. Clioppin, Brickell, 
Bruns and Beard, with violating Section 3, Article I, of the 
Chapter on the duties for the support of Professional Character, 
as embodied in the Code of Ethics adopted by the Medical Asso- 
ciation of New Orleans. 
In testimony I enclose the within handbill, and request that 
the subject be tried and investigated according to the by-laws 
of the association. 
Very respectfully, 
(Signed) I. L. Crawcour, M. D. 
ORLEANS INFIRMARY, 
N~o. 142 Canal Street. 
New Orleans, April, 1869. 
Silt: 
We desire to call your attention to the enclosed card of onr Infirmary, 
established for the treatment of certain medical and surgical diseases, to 
Avhich we have devoted much time and attention. 
Our object is to offer all persons visiting this City for professional advice 
the best aid which legitimate medicine can afford, by a combination of ap- 8 
proved Specialists, in an institution uniting all the advantages of a perfectly 
appointed Infirmary, will) the care, comfort, and privacy of a home. 
The Infirmary is centrally situated in one of the healthiest parts of the 
City, and is commodious, well ventilated, and elegantly furnished. 
The hest Nurses are employed, and Patients will enjoy all the additional 
security which the personal supervision of a Resident Physician can give. 
In the management of the Infirmary, 
Dr. SAMUEL CIIOPPIN, 
in adddition to General Surgery, will give special attention to diseases 
of the Bectum, Bladder and Urethra, and to all Deform ities requiring operations; 
such as Club-foot, Hare-lip, Cleft-palate, &c. &c. 
Dr. C. BEARD 
will attend to the medical and sugieal treatment of Diseases of the Eye and 
Ear. 
Dr. D. W. BRICKELL 
will give attention to Diseases peculiar to Women, and all operations for 
the relief of Orarian Tumors, Dysmcnnorrhoca, Sterility, Uesico- Vaginal Fistula, 
Laceration of the Perineum, &c., &c. 
Dr. J. DICKSON BRUNS 
will attend to all Diseases of the Heart, Lungs and Throat. 
DU. SAMUEL CHOPBIX, 
DP. C. BEARD, 
DP. D. W. B PTC KELL, 
DP. J. DICKSON BRUNS. 
To insure the confidence of those in the country not acquainted with us 
personally, or otherwise, we beg leave to offer the following names as 
REFERENCES: 
Gen’l G. T. Beauregard, 
Gen’l J. S. Marmaduke, 
Moses Greenwood, 
W. J. Frierson & Co. 
Adams, Cockburn & Ilowe, 
Penn, Paco & Nixon, 
Jno. Chaffe & Co. 
Kennett & Bell, 
Gcn’l Jas. Tappan. 
New Orleans, June 21st, 1SG9. 
To Drs. Choppin, Briclcell, Bruns and Beard : 
Gentlemen :—By resolution of tlie Council, I have the honor 
to send you enclosed a copy of a resolution adopted June 19th, 
1869, in reply to your communication addressed to the President 
and Council, and received on the IGtli inst., also a copy of a 
sealed communication addressed to the President and Council, 
and received on the 16th inst.,'from Dr. Crawcour, enclosing a printed handbill signed by Drs. Choppin, Bricked, Bruns and 
Beard. By resolution of the Council, and by the Buies and 
Begulations of our Association, it is made my duty to “demand’’ 
of you a written defense. 
I have the honor to be, 
Very respectfully yours, 
B. H. Moss, M.D., 
President Med. Association, A. 0. 
[Copy of resolution adopted, June 19th, 1869.] 
Hall of Medical Association of X. O. 
A quorum of nine being present at a meeting of tlie Council, 
June 19th, 1869: 
Resolved—That the Council reply to the sealed communication 
of Drs. Choppin, Bripkell, Bruns and Beard, that it has never 
made any charges against them, and has, therefore, none to with- 
draw; it simply gat e the plainest interpretation to a sealed 
communication from Dr. Crawcour, enclosing a printed handbill 
of Drs. C., B., B. and B. 
In fact, the Council only placed the same construction upon 
the sealed communication that Drs. C., B., B. and B. did them- 
selves upon the investigation proposed by Dr. Crawcour in open 
meeting, June 2d, 1869, when they claimed that Dr. Crawcour 
was making charges against them, and was out of order; be- 
cause, in accordance with Art. 16 of the Buies and Begulations, 
such charges should be made in writing, under seal, to the 
Council; which claim was sustained by the President and Asso- 
ciation. 
(Signed) B. H. Moss, M. D. 
President Med. Association of N. 0. 10 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Canal Street, 
June 22d, 1869. 
To the President and Council of Medical Association of N. 0.: 
Gentlemen:—In reply to your resolution adopted June 19th, 
we beg leave respectfully to submit that the very issue made by 
us in our refusal to plead to a “ demand” for defense against 
constructive charges of the Council was, that the Council had no 
latitude, and could not interpret interrogatories as specific 
charges against fellows in good standing. 
Our own right to arrest any fellow in such attempt before an 
“open meeting” of the Association was clear 5 but, as a judicial 
body, you occupy a very different position, and could not legally 
at the same time frame an indictment and summon the defend- 
ants. It has always been held monstrous to unite the functions 
of judge and prosecutor. Whilst we, therefore, re-affirm that 
your powers went no farther in the premises than to answer Dr. 
Crawcour’s interrogatories, if you saw fit, and that a retraction 
of your “ demand” was necessary to rehabilitate us as fellows in 
good standing, we waive further argument in the face of a posi- 
tive charge to which we herewith submit our “ defense in writ- 
ing,” according to the Rules and Begulations of the Medical 
Association of New Orleans. 
Very Respectfully, 
Samuel Ciiopfin, 
C. Beard, 
1). Warren Briokell, 
3. Dickson Bruns. 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Cau.nl Street, 
• June 23d, 18(40. 
To the President and Council of Medical Association of X. 0.: 
Gentlemen :—We have received the resolution of your hon- 
orable body, demanding’ our written defense of charges brought 11 
against ns by Dr. I. L. Crawcour, in a communication addressed 
to you, bearing date June lGth, 18G9, a copy of which you en- 
close. 
Dr. Crawcour’s letter contains a charge and a specification. 
The charge is that we have “ violated Section 3, Article I., of 
the Chapter on the duties for the support of Professional Cha- 
racter, as embodied in the Code of Ethics adopted by the Medical 
Association of Xew Orleans.” 
The specification is that the aforementioned violation consists 
in the issuing of a “ handbill,” whose nature he desires should 
be “ tried and investigated according to the by-laws of the 
Association.” 
We deny the charge and the specification. 
And first as to the specification : 
If we wished to be captious, we think we might not unreason- 
ably object to the pre-judgment of our case, implied in your 
twice using the very objectionable term “handbill” (as descriptive 
of our circular) in your “ demands” upon us of the 9tli and 19th 
instants. 
Assured, however, of your impartiality, we respectfully submit 
that according to the definitions given by Webster in his Un- 
abridged Dictionary, edition of 18G9—the standard authority 
now among English and American writers—a Handbill is “a 
loose printed sheet, to be circulated or stuck up for some public 
announcement.” 
A Circular, on the contrary, is a “ circular letter, or paper, 
often printed, copies of which are addressed to many persons: 
as a business circular, a political circular.” 
Xow we unhesitatingly declare that so far from ever having 
issued a “ handbill,” the printed notice of our Infirmary which 
Dr. Crawcour enclosed to you, in testimony of his charges, falls 
strictly within the letter of the above definition of a “ circular,” 
and that no copy of the same has ever been sent out of our office, 
by our motion or consent, which was not addressed to a bona fide 
person, under cover of a stamped and sealed envelope. 12 
It lias always been, therefore, of the nature of a private letter, 
and any copy falling into other hands has done so by no direction 
of ours, or been fraudulently and surreptitiously obtained. 
Tn using the word “ handbill” as definitive of the form and 
nature of our “ circular,” the prosecutor has simply exhibited his 
ignorance of his mother tongue. 
As far as Dr. Crawcour’s specific charge goes, we might 
strictly rest here; but the case seems to us one of such grave 
importance to our common profession, that we will pass beyond 
the letter to the spirit of the charge, and of that section of the 
code which Ave are said to have violated. 
The Article in question reads: 
“It is derogatory to the dignity of the profession to resort to 
public advertisements, or private cards, or handbills, inviting the 
attention of individuals affected with particular diseases—pub- 
licly offering advice and medicine to the poor gratis, or promis- 
ing radical cures; or to publish cases and operations in the daily 
prints, or suffer such publications to be made ; to invite laymen 
to be present at operations, to boast of cures and remedies, or to 
perform any similar acts. These are the ordinary practices of 
Empirics, and are highly reprehensible in any regular physician.” 
Noav, it is a maxim of laxv, that every statute is to be inter- 
preted as a Avhole, it must be read in the light of its entire 
intent and meaning. Dc minimis non curat lex—the law does not 
potter over trifles. 
Does our circular, then, come within the purview of Section 3, 
Art. 1., of the Code of Ethics ? Clearly not as it seems to us. 
Neither the framers nor signers of that code ever intended to 
forbid, absolutely, the issuing of any form of adA ertisement or 
private card. If so, they have universally violated its injunction 
in letter ami spirit, by every door-plate, street-sign, and news- 
paper card which offers their sendees to the public. Still less 
did they mean to stultify themselves by including in one sweeping 
denunciation, all specialists; a class Avhicli, in the increasing 13 
sub-division of labor that obtains in every department of modern 
thought and industry, includes the most distinguished medical 
names at home and abroad. 
Rationally and fairly interpreted, the section only means to 
affirm that it is derogatory to a regular physician to advertise 
himself by loosely scattered handbills, by offering gratuitous 
services to the poor—as a bait for the rich—promising radical 
cures, boasting of his skill or remedies, publishing his cases and 
operations in the daily prints—as quacks do—all of which are 
“•the ordinary practice of empirics, and highly reprehensible.” 
Our circular is not even an individual card, but the advertise- 
ment of an Infirmary—a private hospital—established and con- 
ducted by four physicians, and it does no more than announce 
that, in that hospital, special cases will be taken charge of by 
particular members of the firm who, through long attention to 
the nature and treatment of certain named diseases, feel them- 
selves qualified to offer their services to the public for their re- 
lief. If it be ever permissible to practice a specialty, or ethical 
for an individual member of the profession to announce that he 
will do so, it is surely much more permissible for a number of 
reputable physicians to associate themselves in the practice of 
special as well as general medicine and surgery, and to issue a 
circular to that effect. 
If to do this is u derogatory to the dignity of the profession,” 
where shall we look for an example of medical integrity ? Cer- 
tainly not within the pale of the American Medical Association, 
nor even in the ranks of the Medical Association of New Orleans, 
which has adopted u the code” as their guide. 
You will find enclosed a Circular of Dr. R. N. Given of Penn- 
sylvania, advertising a u Private Hospital for Mental Diseases.” 
Among his references, and at the head of the list, stands the 
name of Samuel Henry Dickson, M. 1)., Professor of Practice in 
the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, the Nestor of Ame- 
rican medicine. Nomen durum et veneyabile,”—and associated with his, on the same circular, the not less distinguished names 
of Profs. Carson, F. G. Smith, Alfred Stille, Biddle and Meigs, 
and of Drs. John Bell, John Neill and Edward Hartshorne.* 
Can it he supposed that these gentlemen, these u seniors,” whom, 
by the code we are specially instructed to honor, would have 
given their support or countenance to any form of advertisement, 
for any object whatsoever, which they thought ‘‘derogatory to 
the dignity of the profession f’ 
We further submit a list (a few of a thousand such examples, 
if they were needed) showing that by universal practice and 
consent, physicians have never hesitated to advertise themselves, 
and to advertise themselves moreover, as practitioners in special 
departments of medicine. Nor has the American Medical Asso- 
ciation, or the Medical Association of New Orleans, ever con- 
demned any of these physicians, foremost among whom you will 
find Dr. Crawcour, for advertising themselves or the institutions 
with which they are connected. 
First—In the May, 1807, number of tin' “ Southern Journal of 
the Medical Sciences,’7 is the card of Dr. I. L. Crawcour, in which 
he announces that he gives special attention to diseases of the 
Urinary and Genital Organs, and that he will make quantitative 
and qualitative analyses of morbid urine, calculi and deposits. 
Second—In the February, 1807, number of the u Southern 
Journal of the Medical Sciences,” is the card of Drs. Beard and 
Choppin, announcing that Dr. Beard will give special attention 
to diseases of the eye and ear; and that Dr. Choppin will give 
attention to surgery, with special attention to deformities, syphi- 
litic affections, &c. 
Third—in the January, 1800, number of the “ New Orleans 
Journal of Medicine,” is the card of Drs. Bricked and Bruns, in 
which Dr. Brickell announces that lie gives special attention to 
diseases of females, and Dr. Bruns, that lie gives special atten- 
tion to diseases of the throat and chest. 
Fourth—In the same number of the same journal, Dr. Nathan 
Bozeman, of New York City, issues a card, stating that he has 
established a private Hospital for diseases of women, to which 
* To tliis list of references are added six non-professional names. institution Drs. Willard Parker and Austin Flint, Sr., are eon- 
suiting medical officers, and Dr. Bozeman appeals to the sym- 
pathy and patronage of tlie profession. 
Fifth—In the “Buffalo Medical Journal” for March, 18G9, is to 
be seen the card of Dr. E. D. Hudson, whose specialty is artifi- 
cial limbs. 
Sixth—In the Medical Archives of St. Louis for March, 1SG9, 
is the card of Dr. Wm. Dickinson, oculist. 
Seventh—In the “ Medical Gazette of San Francisco,” for 
May, 18G9, is to be found the card of Dr. Geo. II. Powers, who 
devotes himself to the specialty of diseases of the eye. 
Eighth—In the Medical Journals of this country from Boston 
to California, is to be found the card of Dr. Horatio Storer, 
calling attention to his private course of instruction in the spe- 
cialty of diseases of women. 
Ninth—In the “ Beview of Medicine and Pharmacy,” Detroit, 
Michigan, for March, 18G9, Dr. T. A. Fairhaven, announces him- 
self as oculist and aurist; Dr. A. F. Jennings announces himself 
as giving attention to urinology and toxicology; and Dr. J. F. 
Noyes announces himself as giving special attention to diseases 
of the eye and ear. 
Tenth—In the ‘‘Medical Repertory,” Cincinnati, for May, 18G9, 
Drs. Taliaferro and Buckner announce themselves as giving 
special attention to diseases of the eye and ear. 
Eleventh—In the “ New York Medical Journal” for May, 18G9, 
Dr. J. II. Hazleton announces his private Asylum for mental 
diseases, and gives references. 
Twelfth—In the Richmond and Louisville Medical Journal for 
March, 18G9, is to be found the card of Professor Julian J. 
Chisolm, M. D., late of Charleston, now of Baltimore, as oculist 
and aurist. 
All these are u public advertisements,” to use the language of 
Sec. 3, Art. I. of the Code of Medical Ethics; and not only are these 
“ public advertisements,” issued by respectable members of the 
profession, but they have the endorsement of the medical press 
itself, whose editorial staff are, for the most part, members of the 
American Medical Association, some of them indeed occupying high positions in that body. For it will not, we presume, be 
denied that the editor of a- medical journal who issues such a 
“public advertisement” and receives pay for it, pro-tanto approves 
and endorses the propriety of the advertisement. 
We also refer your honorable Council to the files of the daily 
press of this city, for many years past, for the “public advertise- 
ments” of “ Luzenberg’s Hospital” (late Hays’); Dr. Anfoux' 
“Small Pox Hospital,” the “ Maison de Saute” of Dr. Stone (late 
Stone’s Hospital, as “ publicly advertised” on the pediment of 
the building); the “ Circus Street Infirmary,” conducted in turn 
by Dr. Mackie, by Dr. Ker, by Profs. Wedderburn and Nott, by 
Dr. Beard, by Drs. Mercier and Cliailld, and now, lastly, by Drs. 
Trudeau and Formento; the “Eye Infirmary” of Dr. Beard; the 
“Orthopcedic Hospital” of Drs. Choppin and Schuppert; the 
“Woman’s Hospital” of Dr. Bozeman, established on Baronne 
Street, and the “ Hotel Dieu,” with its visiting and consulting 
staff, advertised not only in newspaper columns, but by cards 
framed and hung up at hotels, and on steamboats. 
Conspicuous among such “public advertisements” of infir- 
maries has been that of the “ Woman’s Hospital” of New York 
City, established by Dr. J. Marion Sims, under the patronage of 
the late Prof. Valentine Mott. Has any word of censure been 
uttered against these gentlemen ? 
It is pertinent just here, we think, to quote, on the authority of 
Dr. Wm. E. Kennedy of this city, than whom a loftier and more 
honorable gentleman does not exist in our profession, the facts 
in relation to the foundation of the “Maison de Sante”of Dr. 
Stone, above alluded to. In a letter addressed to one of us, 
dated June 22d, 1809, of which the following is a true copy, he 
says: 
“ In 1839, August, Stone and Kennedy opened their Maison 
de Saute for the reception of patients. This fact was announced 
in the shape of { advertisements ’ in French and English, in all 
the newspapers of the city. The object of the advertisement 
was to set forth the locality of the institution, the number of 
rooms, the accommodations, as of furniture, nursing, medical and 
surgical attendance, rates of admission to different wards, pre- 
payments, &c., &Ci 17 
“ This advertisement was also struck off on what would now be 
called, I suppose, a ‘ handbill.’ 
“This ‘handbill’ was not sent through the post-office to different 
parts of the country, not that I should have had any objection 
in doing so, but simply because I never thought of it. Instead 
of this last method of informing the public at large, I resorted 
to one which now a days might be considered more objectionable 
on the score of ethics. I had a number of these ‘handbills’ 
framed and hung up in the principal hotels, coffee-houses, barber 
shops, steamboat-cabins, and all other places of public resort; 
gave some to friends in the city, both professional and lay, and 
never for a moment dreamed that I was departing from the strict 
ends of professional propriety, or gentlemanly conduct” 
(Signed) -W. B. Kennedy. 
It may aid your judgment, in coming to a decision on this 
question, to take into consideration the annual circulars of the 
Medical Schools of this country, with their “public advertise- 
ments” in the medical journals and in the secular press. These 
advertisements call attention pointedly to the fact that members 
of the several faculties teach special branches of medicine; and, 
since medical specialism has made such rapid advances it is be- 
coming quite common to see announced Professors of Oculistry, 
Orthopaedic Surgery, &c., &e. If in advertising an infirmary in 
the daily papers, in medical journals, and by circulars such as 
ours, we are violating the code of medical ethics, as is charged, 
then tffe teachers of medicine in this city who belong to our 
association are equally guilty of its violation. For what stronger 
advertisement that lie practices a specialty can any one desire 
than the public announcement that he teaches it ? 
We trust that it is unnecessary to add that we refer to these 
“advertisements” in no captious spirit of criticism. If they 
violate the code of professional ethics, we would scorn to en- 
trench ourselves behind the disreputable practices of others. 
Our act appeals to the common sense of men, and, liberally and 
fairly interpreted, is its own best defense. 18 
We point to the various forms of advertising merely to illus- 
trate what the practice and precedent in our profession has been, 
and to show that no one would be safe from assault if his conduct 
were to be measured by a garbled verbal application of the code, 
in disregard of its true spirit and intent—that spirit which is its 
life, and which alone can effectually appeal to the profession for 
support. 
We might go further; we might urge that such institutions as 
the one we have organized, have long been imperatively needed 
in the South ; that instead of being made the butt of hostile 
shafts, they should be applauded and encouraged. We might 
assert our claims to at least a fair share of reputation for profes- 
sional zeal and honesty, by pointing not merely to our past his- 
tory as individuals, but as the organizers and active supporters 
of the very association before whose bar we are now summoned. 
Without overstepping the bounds of modesty, we think we may 
fairly challenge comparison with any fellow of that body in 
earnest and unwavering devotion to the highest interests of our 
profession. 
If this were the place we might show the animus of this prose- 
cution by illustrating the associations and practices of the fellow 
who has arraigned us. Our own dignity, and our respect for your 
honorable body, alike admonish us to forbear from what might 
wear even the appearance of recrimination, in a defense against 
charges of unprofessional conduct; a defense which, like our 
consciences, must be as clear as noon day or is utterly worthless. 
Conscious that we have never had an aim incompatible with the 
strictest honor of our profession, nor an object unassociated with 
its best advancement, we submit our case without hesitation and 
without fear. 
Respectfully yours, 
Samuel Ciioppin, 
C. Beard, 
D. Warren Brickell, 
J. Dickson Bruns. 19 
New Orleans,' July 5th, 1869. 
Drs. Brickell, Bruns, Choppin and Beard : 
Gentlemen :—It is my duty, by the Rules and Regulations of 
our Association to notify you of the unanimous decission (sic) of 
the Council (fifteen members being present/ in the matter of 
charges brought by Dr. I. L. Crawconr, a copy of which I here- 
with enclose. 
Permit me, gentlemen, to hope that I shall soon have the 
pleasure of reeieving (sic) from you your friendly acceptance of 
the same, and that we may all still work together for the good of 
our association and our common proffession (sic). 
Very truly, &c. 
B. H. Moss, M. D., 
Presid't Medical Association. 
P. S.—There will be an ordinary monthly meeting of our asso- 
ciation on Wednesday evening next, the 7th inst. B. II. M. 
The following; Preamble and Resolutions were adopted at the 
Meeting of the Council of the Medical Association of New Or- 
leans, held on Saturday, July 3d, 1869 : 
Inasmuch as Drs. S. Choppin, 11. W. Brickell, C. Beard, and 
• ' 
J. 1). Bruns, have resorted to a private card or handbill or circular 
dated April, I860, which designates themselves as “approved 
specialistscalls the attention of “ individuals affected with 
particular diseases” to their special skill in such diseases; and 
have appended thereto as a part thereof, references to influential 
citizens (non-professional) similar to adducing certificates of skill, 
therefore, 
\ 
Resolved, that the above specifications are in violation of Chap. 
II., Art. I., p. 3, of the Code of Ethics of the American Medical 
Association, which is a part of the rules and regulations of the 
Medical Association of New Orleans, and which states that 
“ It is derogatory to the dignity of the profession” and “highly 
reprehensible in a regular physician to resort to advertisements 20 
or private cards or handbills, inviting the attention of individuals 
affected with particular diseases,” “to adduce certificates of skill’’ 
or “to perform any similar acts.” 
Resolved, that t,lie Council recognizes with pleasure the high 
position, the just influence, and the valuable services to this 
society of the fellows under charges; and, having no other 
object in view but the welfare of the profession, expresses the 
hope that these fellows, yielding their judgment to that of the 
Council, will cordially unite with them in determining for the 
future, if the present regulations be unsatisfactory, what shall 
be the guiding rules of conduct of the fellows of this association 
and of enforcing all such rules without fear or favor. 
Resolved, that inasmuch as the rules and regulations enforce 
either “ suspension or expulsion” as the necessary penalty of a 
violation of the rules and regulations, Drs. S. Choppin, D. W. 
Briekell, C. Beard and J. D. Bruns, are hereby “ suspended” by 
the Council, for such time, however brief, as they may require to 
signify to the President their willingness to conform their action 
to the interpretation given by the Council to the existing “ rules 
and regulations” of this association. 
(Signed) B. H. Moss, M. 1)., 
From tlie Minutes, Pres. Medical Association. 
John W. Caldwell, M. I). 
Record i nr/ fleer eta ry. 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Canal Street, 
July 7tli, 1809. 
To the President and Fellows of the Medical Association of X. 0.: 
Gentlemen:—As the Council of the Medical Association of 
New Orleans, at a meeting held July 3d, 1809, for the purpose of 
passing judgment on certain charges brought against us by Dr. 
I. L. Crawcour, a fellow of your body, have, in their preamble, 
set a construction upon the circular of the Orleans Infirmary, 
conducted by us, which we think wholly unwarrantable; aud as 21 
they have decided said circular to be in violation of Chap. II. 
Art. I, par. 3, of the Code of Ethics of the American Medical 
Association, which is a part of the rules and regulations of the 
Medical Association of New Orleans; and as they have 
Resolved, that u inasmuch as the rules and regulations enforce 
either i suspension or expulsion’ as the necessary penalty of a 
violation of the rules and regulations, Drs. S. Clioppin, D. W. 
Brick ell, C. Beard and J. II. Bruns, are hereby ‘ suspended’ by 
the Council, for such time, however brief, as they may require to 
signify to the President their willingness to conform their action 
to the interpretation given by the Council to existing 1 rules and 
regulations’ of this association.” 
We would respectfully make answer that, in the defence 
already read to your honorable body, we have set forth our views 
of the real intent and meaning of the Code of Ethics, and shown 
that precedent,' custom, and a fair construction of the code, alike 
absolve us from any violation of its injunctions, in whole or in 
part j and to this we have nothing to add in qualification or re- 
traction. 
Our circular was not prepared or issued by us without long 
and serious deliberation, and, despite the judgment of the 
Council, we find nothing in our conduct that does not, on an im- 
partial review, seem to us to be fair, honorable and judicious. 
To yield this point would be to make a confession disgraceful 
to ourselves, and a concession fraught with the gravest danger to 
the character, influence, and prosperity of every medical man 
who might seek to lift himself above the level of common pro- 
fessional attainment. 
This conclusion is final and absolute on our part, and, as our 
determination is irrevocable not to u signify to the President our 
willingness to conform to the interpretation given by the Council 
to the existing rules and regulations of the association,” as ap- 
plied to our case, and as we desire to relieve your honorable body 
from all further embarrassment, we beg leave to offer our several 
resignations, to take effect from whatever date your honorable 
body may be pleased to receive them. 
Samuel Choppin, 
C. Beard, 
I). Warren Briokell, 
J. Dickson Bruns. 22 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Canal Street, 
July 10th, 1869. 
Dr. B. H. Moss, President Medical Association of X. 0.: 
Sir:—We would be pleased to know what.action the Medical 
Association of New Orleans took on the subject of our resigna- 
tions offered at its meeting on the 7tli inst. 
Very respectfully, your obd’t serv’ts, 
I). Warren Brickell, 
Samuel Choppin, 
C. Beard, 
J. Dickson Bruns. 
New Orleans, July 10th, 1869. 
Drs. Ghoppin, Bricked, Bruns and Beard: 
Gentlemen:—Your communication of to-day is before me, 
and, in reply to your question as to what u action the Association 
took on the subject of your resignations.” I have to say that 
your communication of the 7th inst., was read by the Secretary 
to the Medical Association, on Wednesday evening, the 7th, in 
special meeting, and the Association decided they could not 
accept your resignations, and it was moved and carried that your 
“ communication be laid on the table,” and that no reply to it 
was necessary. 
Very respectfully, your ob’t serv’t, 
B. H. Moss, Pres. Med. Ass. of X. 0. 
Orleans Infirmary, 142 Canal Street, 
July 12th, 1869. 
To the President and Fellows of the Medical Association of X. 0.: 
Gentlemen :—In answer to a letter from us of the 10th inst., 
asking for information, your President replies: “ That your (our) 
eommunioation of the 7th iust., was read by the Secretary to the 
Medical Association on Wednesday evening, the 7th, in special meeting; and the Association decided they could not accept your 
(our) resignations, and it was moved and carried that your (our) 
communication be laid on the table, and that no reply to it was 
necessary.” 
The Association will, of course, be governed in such matters 
by its own sense of courtesy; but, we are at a loss to conjecture 
how we could obtain any actionable knowledge of our present 
relations to the Association without official information of it from 
yourselves. 
It is not our intention to discuss any further with your honor- 
able body the action of the Council, nor your approval of the 
same—both, we suppose, are final; but we are now free to say 
what before would have been in bad taste, and liable to miscon- 
struction. 
In rendering their decision, the Counci l state that u the rules 
and regulations enforce either ‘ suspension or expulsion’as the 
necessary penalty of their violation.” 
Xow, expulsion is, as it was certainly intended by the framers 
of the law to be, the graver punishment of the two. It cuts off 
the subject of it from all association with the body expelling him 
at once and forever. Whether it carry with it any pains or 
penalties beyond the mere exclusion from fellowship would, 
of course, depend upon the cause of expulsion. The crime and 
not the scaffold makes the shame. 
Suspension, on the other hand, is only a temporary pr ivation of 
rights and privileges, and must have, therefore, a definite limit. 
But the Council, without any warrant to be found in the rules 
and regulations for such judgment, decide that we are “ sus- 
pended for such time as ice may require to signify to the President 
our willingness to conform our action to the interpretation given by 
the Council to the existing rules and regulations of the association.” 
And when we decline to do th is (because wo believe such consent 
to be disgraceful to ourselves, and prejudicial to the best interests 
of our professional brethren), but offer our resignations in order to relieve you from the embarrassment likely to arise from a 
finding which, however illegal, you had already approved, you 
decide that our resignations u cannot be accepted” and “ lay 
them on the table.” 
What follows? That—even granting our guilt—the presumed 
milder sentence of the law assumes the proportions of a mon- 
strous and intolerable wrong. For we are not merely cut off from 
all the rights and privileges of fellowship, which is the utmost 
that expulsion could effect, but taxed indefinitely with all the 
charges and responsibilities of an association in which we are 
denied any part or lot. 
But mark! in the same series of resolutions, the Council, after 
a very flattering allusion to our “ high position,” “just influence” 
and “ valuable services to the society,” u expresses the hope that 
these fellows, yielding their judgment to that of the Council, will 
cordially unite with them in determining for the future, if the 
present regulations be unsatisfactory, what shall be the guiding 
rules of conduct of the fellows ot this association.” 
If this resolution mean anything, it fully acquits us of all in- 
tentional violation of the Code of Ethics; for surely, the Council 
would not consent to, much less invite, reassociation with us 
otherwise. The end, therefore, if cordially desired, was not far 
to seek. They had only to make such a declaration, and our 
whole past warrants us in asserting that we would have as cor- 
dially stricken hands with the Association, and, after serious and 
impartial debate in open session, so fixed the land-marks of our 
ethical law, that, thenceforward, lie who ran might read. 
But when to this request, that we would yield our private judg- 
ment to that of the Council, a punishment, degrading in its 
nature, is affixed, to have operation until such concession is made, 
we reject the compromise as unworthy of men or gentlemen. 
Any man may be proud to walk through a door of reconciliation ; 
no gentleman will abase himself to crawl through a hole of ad- 
justment. 
To the declaration, therefore, of the association, that we cannot 
res fin, we very respectfully and finally make answer that ice 
ha vc resigned: 
Samuel Choppin, 
C. Beard, 
D. Warren Brickell, 
J. Dickson Brijns.