HoSj3 
a In 1874. ■*- 
A REPLY TO THE PRINTED CIRCULAR 
OP 
DRS. E. R. PEASLEE, T, A. EMMET, A® T. GA1LLARD THOMAS, 
/ 
ADDRESSED 
“To the Medical Profession,” 
“MAY 5th, 1877." 
BY 
J. MARION SIMS, M.D., 
FOUNDER OF THE WOMAN'S HOSPITAL OF THE STA TE OF NEW YORK, 
AND FORMERLY SURGEON TO THE SAME, 
|Wd jlftorh: 
Kent & Co., Printers, 11 Frankfort Street. 
1877. The Woman’s Hospital in 1874. 
A REPLY TO THE PRINTED CIRCULAR OF 
DPS. PEASLEE, EMMET\ A ED THOMAS, 
ADDRESSED TO 
“THE MEDICAL PROFESSION,” 
By J. Marion Sims, M.D., 
FOUNDER OF THE WOMAN’S HOSPITAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND FORMERLY SURGEON 
TO THE SAME. 
Doctors’ quarrels, in whatever form, are always a disgrace 
to the profession. And when they take the shape of cards 
and pamphlets they become a lasting shame. There nevei 
was a dispute of this kind in which the right was all on one 
side. Each party is more or less to blame. 
In this instance I shall frankly acknowledge how, when 
and where I was in fault, and I will show conclusively how 
and where my former associates are mistaken. 
I approach this controversy with much regret, and with 
mortification to my self-respect. 
When I look into my own heart, it seems to me that I am 
more sorry for Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas, than I am 
for myself. For in self-defence I shall be obliged to say 
disagreeable things, which I would have preferred not to 
say. But having been publicly assailed I can no longer re- 
main silent. I am now free to tell the story of my resigna- 
tion, (almost expulsion) from the Woman’s Hospital. 
In this I shall do my duty to myself, to truth, to justice, 
to honor, and to my profession. I shall use no disparaging- 
epithets. I shall deal in no questionable inuendoes, nor in 
constructive interpretations of facts which may lead to wrong- 
conclusions. 2 
Sacli words as “ unqualifiedly false,” do not belong to 
my vocabulary, and can, under no circumstances, be applied 
by me to any statement of principle, or fact made by a. 
member of my profession, however far from the real truth 
his statements may seem. 
The instincts of my nature revolt at phrases of this kind.. 
My education and training have raised me above their level. 
Those who have not had these advantages are more to be 
pitied, than censured. 
I shall have the charity then to say, in speaking of my late 
associates, that they are mistaken. I will not disgrace the 
profession to which I have belonged for more than forty years, 
by saying that their statements are “ false.” But they have 
made a mistake in policy, and a mistake in facts, and I am 
sure they will regret it as long as they live. 
I write not in anger, though deeply wounded, and pro- 
foundly grieved. 
The following printed circular issued by Drs. Peaslee, 
Emmet, and Thomas is the foundation of this controversy. 
“TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.” 
“Statements respecting the Separationoe Dr. J. Mar- 
ion Sims from the Woman’s Hospital, New York.” 
“In November, 1874, Dr. J. Marion Sims tendered his resig- 
nation as a member of the Medical Board of the Woman’s 
Hospital above mentioned ; since which time insinuations— 
and more recently, distinct charges—have been widely circu- 
lated, of unworthy conduct in connection with that matter, 
of ourselves as his colleagues in that Board. Had they been 
confined to New York, where all the parties concerned are 
well known, we should still have remained silent; but the 
recent extensive distribution to the profession in this country 
of a biographical sketch containing such charges, compels 
us, in justice to ourselves and to the Woman’s Hospital, to 
make the following statement of facts : 
In January, 1874, the Board of Governors of the Woman’s 
Hospital, passed the two following regulations: 1st. That 
no cases of Carcinoma Uteri should be admitted into the 3 
Hospital ; and 2d. That not more than tifteen spectators, in 
addition to the Hospital Staff, should be present at any 
operation. The Medical Board formally discussed these 
rules and decided unanimously to abide by them, as being 
called for, and conducive to the best interests of patients 
and of the Hospital—Dr. Sims voting affirmatively with the 
undersigned. And from this time the Board worked, as it had 
previously done, in entire harmony, so far as we were aware, 
until Dr. Sims resigned, several months afterwards. 
As the Medical Board is required to make its Annual Re- 
port at the Anniversary Meeting of the Hospital in Novem- 
ber, said report was on the preceding day presented by the 
Secretary, as usual, to each member of this Board for exam- 
ination, alteration and endorsement, and was unanimously 
approved, without any suggestion of alteration by any mem- 
ber of the Board. It alluded specially to the regulation re- 
specting the number of spectators, stating that “ the Medi- 
cal Board desires, and has ever desired, in the interest of the 
patients and of themselves, that the number of the specta- 
tors should be limited,” and “ announces its determination 
to do its utmost to observe the law that had been passed.” 
On the following day, after the customary exercises of the 
anniversary meeting, including the reading of said report, 
were concluded, Dr. Sims rose and delivered a speech severe- 
ly reflecting upon the tyrannical course of the Board of 
Governors, as he termed it, in establishing the two rules 
above specified—and which, as has been seen, he had himself 
unqualifiedly indorsed ; said he would no longer submit to 
such treatment, and threatened to resign unless the Board of 
Governors rescinded these rules at their next meeting. Col. 
Davis, a member of that Board, after expressing his regret 
that Dr. Sims had obtruded his private greivances on that 
occasion, replied at some length, when the meeting ad- 
journed. 
The undersigned were surprised and astonished at the 
course taken by Dr. Sims, and in conversation with the mem- 
bers of the Board of Governors and the Lady Managers, 
after the adjournment, disclaimed all sympathy with it, as 
an unwarrantable misrepresentation of the feelings of the 
Medical Board. In a few weeks the regular meeting of the 
Board of Governors was held, and Dr. Sims’ resignation was 
unanimously accepted. 
The charges above alluded to, are, that we urged Dr. Sims 
to a bold and dignified stand for the interests and honor of 
the profession ; and then meanly deserted him “in the time 
of conflict.” 4 
Each of these charges is unqualifiedly false. We neither 
urged nor suggested any course to Dr. Sims, he having acted 
entirely unexpectedly to us. Nor did the issue he made, 
touch the interest or the honor of the profession at all. He 
made it entirely on his own account and for his own personal 
reasons, some of which were given in his speech. We may 
also remark that he had at no time been the recognized 
champion or spokesman of the Medical Board, and that he 
admitted he was speaking for himself at the time. 
In regard to deserting Dr. Sims in the time of conflict, we 
merely say that we could scarcely stultify ourselves so far 
as to defend him in his violent contradictions both of the 
letter and the spirit of the report of the Medical Board, 
which he, with ourselves, had, only 24 hours before, agreed 
to in every particular. We could only deplore his incon- 
sistency and regret its consequences ; but not interfere, un- 
asked, in his own business. 
If, therefore, Dr. Sims is to be a martyr in connection with 
this affair, we protest against his being regarded by the pro- 
fession as one of our making.” 
‘‘ May 5th, 1877.” “ E. R. PEASLEE,” 
“T. A. EMMET,” 
“T. GAILLARD THOMAS.” 
When I was abroad last year, at the urgent solicitation 
of friends, I promised to return to Paris in May of this 
year, and remain there till the 1st of November, for a defin- 
ite purpose. It is unnecessary to state my obligations on 
this point more minutely. For the last three or four months 
it has been generally understood that I would sail for Europe 
on the 12th of May. But circumstances occured to prevent 
my departure, and it was announced in the Va., Med. 
Monthly, and known all over New York that I would sail on 
Saturday, the 19th, for Liverpool, on the steamer “City of 
Richmond.” 
Dr. Peaslee, Dr. Emmet and Dr. Thomas all knew the 
day and date of my intended departure. 
The steamer was to sail at 10:30, A. M., on Saturday. At 
a quarter to seven on the previous evening I received by 
mail the foregoing printed circular. At eight o’clock, I 
received another by messenger. The superscription on each 
was by the same hand, and with the same ink. 5 
In the latter, the writer affected to mis-spell my name. 
The circular bears date the 5th of May. It was sent to me 
on the 18th, about fifteen hours before I was to leave home. 
Was it really written on the 5th, and detained till the 18th 
merely for annoyance ? Or was it concocted at a later per- 
iod, and ante-dated for a purpose, I will not stoop to hint at ? 
These are suggestive but not 'important queries, which will, 
in all probability, never be answered. 
It did not require a second’s thought for me to determine 
what to do. Disappointments and the loss of time and 
money are as naught compared with honor. And I ha ve re- 
mained over for the purpose of vindicating myself. 
In October, 1858,1 came to New York to reside ; soon after, 
1 conceived the idea of establishing a hospital for the treat- 
ment of the diseases of women. 
•• My programme was to enlist the leading members of my 
profession in the enterprise, and through them to reach in- 
fluential citizens. 
Dr. John W. Francis was the first friend I made ; Mr. 
Henri L. Stuart was the next, and through him I reached the 
Hon. Peter Cooper, and the Hon. E. C. Benedict, who have 
remained true friends ever since. Mr. Stuart alone knows the 
thousand little annoyances, and trials, and troubles I passed 
through in New York in establishing the Woman’s Hospital. 
He alone knows the opposition and persecution I endured, 
all of which I forgave long ago. 
It was Mr. Stuart who placed me in a position to command 
the profession, whether they would or not, and to lexd 
them to do what they should have done. Mr. Stuart knows, 
as I do, that but for his influence exerted in a way that 
was irresistible, I would have been lost, and the Woman’s 
Hospital could not have been. 
All this may seem irrelevant, but I give this hint at the 
private history of the Woman’s Hospital, as a reason, 
for Mr. Stuart’s unswerving attachment to me. But 
his devotion sometimes overleaps- the bounds of pru- 
dence. Now and then, he is hasty and indiscreet, even in 
the defence of right. 6 
This controversy has grown out of his indiscretion, and 
(he will excuse me for saying) his obstinacy. 
Mr. Stuart has voluntarily assumed the self-imposed task 
of writing biographical sketches of me. Pie wrote one for 
Appleton’s Cyclopedia, and another for Johnson’s, neither 
of which have I ever seen, and he seized the occasion of my 
Presidency of the American Medical Association last year, to 
write sketches for the illustrated papers. 
These he has always written of his own accord, and from 
his o wn personal knowledge of my labors since I came to 
New York, and without any consultation whatever with me. 
Last fall, at the solicitation of Dr. Landon B. Edwards, of 
Richmond, he agreed to write what he termed a complete 
sketch of my life for the Virginia Medical Monthly, of which 
Dr. Edwards is editor. 
To this end, Mr. Stuart asked me to give him an evening, 
to tell him about my work abroad, of which he knew noth- 
ing. I did so ; and at the appointed time Mr. Stuart came, 
with his stenographer, Mr. Edward F. Underhill, who took 
down the facts he wanted. I requested Mr. Stuart to let 
me look over his sketch before publishing it. In reading it 
over I suggested many alterations and modifications of lan- 
guage, and in one instance I struck out a whole page, be- 
cause it alluded to my resignation from the Woman’s Hos- 
pital, and reflected on the moral courage of my associates 
at that time. We had a sharp dispute over the matter, which 
ended in his leaving it out. 
The “ Biographical Sketch of J. Marion Sims, M. D., pre- 
pared by Henri L. Stuart, of New York,” was published in 
the January number of the Virginia Medical Monthly, 1877. 
On the 14th February I went South to make a long prom- 
ised visit to the home of my childhood, in South Carolina, 
after forty-two years’ absence, and to the home of my early 
professional struggles in Montgomery, Alabama, after an ab- 
sence of twenty-four years. 
I was absent till the'last day of March, and was ill all the 
time I was gone. 
On my return home, I was shocked to find that my devoted 7 
and zealous friend, Mr. Stuart, liad published his sketch 
of me in the Medical Eclectic. Not only this, but he had 
inserted that portion of his sketch which I had stricken from 
his original manuscript, and had altered the phraseology in 
many other places. [I take this occasion to say to my pro- 
fessional bretliern that I was exceedingly surprised to tind 
that Mr. Stuart had published his sketch in the Medical 
Eclectic, and much more mortified when I heard that the 
Doctors in town were talking about it, and censuring me for 
it. If I had been at home it could not have happened, and 
I solemnly declare that I had no more to do with its appear- 
ance in the Eclectic than had Dr. Peaslee, Dr. Emmet or Dr. 
Thomas, who are so much aggrieved by it. I am only sur- 
prised that any man of common sense could, for a moment, 
suppose I could do such a thing]. 
On page 737, Virginia Medical Monthly, January, 1877, 
Biographical sketch, Mr. Stuart says : 
“ In 1868, Dr. Sims returned to New York, taking up his 
residence permanently, but leaving his family in Paris two 
years longer, to complete the education of his younger chil- 
dren.” 
“ In 1870 he was on a visit to his family in Paris, when 
the Franco-Prussian war broke out.” 
In the Medical Eclectic March, 1877, pages 54 and 55, we 
find the following whole page of matter placed between 
the two paragraphs above quoted from the Virginia Med- 
ical Monthly, and this is the matter which I struck out of 
Mr. Stuart’s original article for reasons already given : 
“ Soon after Dr. Sims’ return from Europe, in 1868, he was 
•elected one of the Board of Governors of the Woman’s Hos- 
pital. In 1872, he induced the Governors to enlarge the 
Medical Board of the Hospital, appointing four siirgeons in- 
stead of one. 
Early in 1873 this change was made, and Dr. Sims, with 
three associates, Drs. Thomas, Emmet, and Peaslee, were 
appointed Surgeons, the beds being equally divided 
between them. In 1874, some difference of opinion 
arose, not between the members of the Medical Board, 
but between this Board and the Board of Governors 
in regard to admitting Cancer Cases to the Hospital, and 8 
also on the admission of physicians to witness the opera- 
tions performed by the several surgeons. Dr. Sims defended 
the honor and interests of the medical profession with such 
independence and zeal that he was forced, unwillingly, to 
resign his position as one of the surgeons. His professional 
associates, though brave and ‘invincible* in urging him on to 
assert their professional claims, to a man, proved ‘invisible’ 
in the hour of conflict. No one can deny that Dr. Sims 
created the Woman’s Hospital—obtained its charter, pro- 
cured the first appropriations of money from the City and 
State for its aid, and secured the admirable site on which 
the Hospital now stands, and has also given the best years 
of his life and labor to its advancement —created its Board 
of Governors; also, its Board of Lady Managers ; and its 
Medical Board who were originally taught by him all that is 
novel, or in any way recognized as distinctive in practice in the 
Woman’s Hospital. Yet he was obliged to leave his Hospi- 
tal, and that, too, without a word of protest from his brethren 
of the Medical Board. 
If Dr. Sims had been wrong in the position he assumed 
he should have been tolerated, and continued in considera- 
tion of the great work he has performed. But he was 
entirely right in the position taken, though unwise, per- 
haps, in the time and place for asserting it. and the profes- 
sion and the public, when the facts are known, as they surely 
will be everywhere, will sustain him in the noble stand he 
took in defense of right upon principle. Dr. Sims, from the 
first, intended his Hospital to be a school and an educator of 
the medical profession in the highest interests of woman, so- 
ciety and humanity.” 
Several of my medical friends, among whom 1 may men- 
tion Hammond, Darby, Sayre, O. A. White, Pallen, and 
others, have asked me why Mr. Stuart in his sketch in the 
Virginia Medical Monthly, made no mention of the circum- 
stances attending my resignation from the W Oman's Hospital. 
I invariably answered that he did write it, and that it was 
suppressed intentionally by me, because his account of it 
was not very complimentary to my associates in the Hospi- 
tal. 
Having now shown that I had nothing whatever, directly 
or indirectly, to do with the offensive part of the biographical 
sketch, I might end this matter here, and leave Mr. Stuart 9 
to defend himself against the assault made upon him, (but 
intended for me) for having published what has been termed 
by Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, and Thomas, as “unqualifiedly 
false.” 
But however able Mr. Stuart is to defend himself as the 
real author of the article, he must stand aside for the pres- 
ent. If necessary he will appear later. 
The circular of Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, and Thomas, was in- 
tended for me, and not for Mr. Stuart. I accept it in the 
spirit in which it was sent forth, and I am now to the front 
to battle for the right, and for the honor of my profession. 
For the time being, I adopt every word of Mr. Stuart’s sup- 
pressed, offensive page. But when Mr. Stuart says, “His 
professional associates, though brave and 4 invincible ’ in 
urging him on to assert their professional claims,” he speaks 
figuratively, and I repudiate it. But when Mr. Stuart con- 
cludes the sentence with—they “to a man proved ‘invisi- 
ble’ in the hour of conflict”—he meant literally what he 
said, and more than he said. And it will be seen directly 
that I fully endorse Mr. Stuart’s meaning, but in language 
much more definite. 
According to the circular of Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and 
Thomas, it appears that 
“In January, 1874, the Board of Governors of the 
Woman’s Hospital passed the two following resolutions : 
1st. That no cases of carcinoma uteri should be admitted 
into the hospital; and 
2nd. That not more than fifteen spectators, in addition to 
the hospital staff, should be present at any operation. 
The Medical Board formally discussed these rules, and de- 
cided unanimously to abide by them, as being called for, 
and conducive to the best interests of patients, and of the 
hospital—Dr. Sims voting affirmatively with the under- 
signed.” 
Is this literally, or only constructively true % Let us see.- 
J list one week before the action of the Med ical Board as 
above, Dr. Thomas, as secretary, called a meeting of the 
Medical Board at the residence of Dr. Emmet, to consider 10 
what ought to be the action of the Board of Governors on 
the two questions already alluded to. 
After some informal conversation on the subject, one of 
the Board, (I think it was Dr. Emmet,) suggested that we 
should adjourn, to meet again in the course of a week, (the 
day was designated, Jan’y 12th, 1874), and that each one of us 
should come with a written opinion as to our course of action. 
At the appointed time and place we met. The chairman, 
Dr. Emmet, calling the meeting to order, asked me for my 
report. I then read a dignified and manly protest against 
the action of the Board of Governors, such as I would not 
be ashamed to publish to-morrow, if it were necessary.* 
When I had finished, Dr. Thomas said: “If we take the 
stand you suggest we shall all be turned out at once.” I 
replied: “No, Dr. Thomas, the Board of Governors could 
turn out any one of us, but they could not afford to turn us 
all out. They would not dare to do it.” 
Dr. Emmet then said: “Dr. Sims take care of that docu- 
ment, we may need it to fall back on.” 
I then said, if they did not at once adopt my protest, and 
take the stand, that the Board of Governors had no right 
whatever to interfere in matters so strictly belonging to the 
Medical Board, they would never have any use in the 
future for protests. 
A few minutes after this conversation, Drs. Peaslee, Em- 
met and Thomas adopted the resolutions as published above, 
in which they say : “ Dr. Sims voting affirmatively with the 
undersigned.” 
I did not vote at all. True, I did not rise, and formally 
say—“Mr. Chairman, I protest against the adoption of 
these resolutions, and I wish it to be so recorded in the 
minutes.” 
These gentlemen know as well as I do, that I did not vote 
at all; that it was impossible for me to vote in the affirma- 
tive after the protest I had read, and the stand I took only 
a moment before. 
They have simply construed abstention into approval— 
* There was no formal report made by the other members of the Board. 11 
more, they have chosen to misconstrue, and misrepresent an 
act of politeness, and it is not the only time they have done 
so with me. But, for the question at issue, it is really of no 
importance whether I voted for the resolution or not. What 
if I had X Did that rob me of all freedom of thought, or speech, 
or action forever afterwards % Did that place me in a posi- 
tion in which I should not dare to protest against tyranny, 
or defend l ight X By no means. Slaves have the right to 
protest against oppression. And yet Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, 
and Thomas affect to deny this privilege to me ; and they 
lacked the manliness and courage to assert it for themselves. 
True, I respected the passage of the resolutions of the Medi- 
cal Board so far as not to admit cases of carcinoma uteri into 
my wards of the hospital. But these gentlemen know very 
well that I never heeded the injunction to limit the number 
of spectators to fifteen. 
I took my friends to the hospital whenever it suited me to 
do so, without regard to the rule of exclusion. 
It is true that the annual report, to be made at the anniver- 
csary meeting, was submitted to each member of the Board for 
approval. I approved it without reading it. And I would 
have approved it even if I had read it. It was enough for 
for me to know that it emanated from Dr. Thomas to meet 
my approval. And I have no doubt I should have approved 
it just as readily if it had been written by Dr. Peaslee, or Dr 
Emmet. 
I have been, repeatedly asked by my medical friends in all 
parts the country, from here to California, and all through 
the South, why I resigned from the Woman’s Hospital. And 
when I have told the story, I have been met with the ques- 
tion, “ Why have you not published the facts 
My answer to all, has invariably been. “I did not pub- 
lish them because they would scandalize my profession.” 
The injury inflicted by such publications is not confined to 
the parties to the act, but it is felt by the entire medical 
profession everywhere. 
It is not my fault that they are now published. 12 
The fault lies with Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas, and! 
they must bear its entire responsibility. 
For their unwise attack on me, but fifteen hours before I 
was to sail for Europe, gives opportunity, and demands the 
fullest exposition. Their document unfortunately necessi- 
tates a reply, not from its force, but from its animus, and 
the respectability of its a uthorship. 
Once a year, usually in November, we have the Anniversary 
Meeting at the Woman’s Hospital, where reports are made by 
the governing boards, and the Medical Board. These meet- 
ings are pleasant occasions, when reviews of the past years’ 
labors lay open to the public, the great work of this grand 
institution. They are mutual admiration meetings, when 
everybody thanks everybody, and everybody praises every- 
body. This is as it should be. 1 would not have i t changed. 
It was inaugurated under the presidency of the venerable Dr. 
John W. Francis, at the first Anniversary Meeting, in 
February, 1866, when he delivered his memorable and elo- 
quent address depicting the usefulness of the Woman’s 
Hospital, and prophesying its future greatness. I hope that 
these annual jubilations may be continued for all time. 
Could there be anything more inopportune, more incon- 
siderate than to disturb the harmony of an occasion like this l 
And yet I must acknowledge that I committed this offence ; 
and, at the same time, I frankly say it wras a great mistake, 
and is the great regret of my life. 
On the 19th November, 1874, the Anniversary Meeting was 
held as usual at the Hospital Building, 4th avenue and 50th 
street. The ceremonial was grand, imposing, harmonious. 
When the reports were read, and we were about to ad- 
journ, I arose, and addressed the chair as follows : I report 
this unfortunate speech, that everyone may see exactly where 
and how I was to blame, and then I will show how others 
are in fault. 
“Mr. President.”— 
“The reports of the Governors, Lady Managers, and of the 
Medical Board, which have just been read are all that could 
be desired. They show that the Hospital was never in a 
more flourishing condition, and that its future usefulness is as- 13 
:sured beyond question. Every thing seems to be rose-col- 
ored, and on the surface all is tranquil. 
Far be it from me to say, or do auglit to rudely mar the 
happiness and harmony of this occasion. And I pray you 
to forgive me if I take this opportunity to say a few words 
on some matters that have for some time been the theme of 
contention among us. This is not, perhaps, the best chosen 
time for such discussion. But. it is the only time in the 
whole year when we are all face to face. To-day, as usual 
on Anniversary occasions, we have present the whole Medica] 
Board, the entire Board of Lady Managers, and the Board of 
Governors is represented by its highest intelligence. 
Three questions have disturbed the harmony of these sev- 
eral Boards during the last two years. 
The first is that of the name of the hospital. The charter 
of this hospital was obtained from the Legislature under the 
name of “The Woman’s Hospital of the State of New 
York.” By a clerical error of the copyist it was made to 
read “ The Woman’s Hospital in the State of New York.” 
Contrary to the expressed wishes of the Medical Board, 
you have insisted that we shall call the hospital by the mis- 
nomer, “The Woman’s Hospital in the State of New York,” 
and I believe you have officially ordered the Medical Board 
to do so, saying that you would not in future receive any 
communications from the Medical Board if they did not 
conform to this order. In this I am frank to say, you are 
wrong, and there is no difference of opinion among the mem- 
bers of the Medical Board. 
The Hon, Mr. Benedict, of your Board, one of the original 
corporators, drew up our charter, and he knows that I am 
right in this matter. And so does your president, the Hon. 
Mr. Beekman, who gave us his powerful aid in getting the 
charter through the Legislature. And as I am the father of 
the hospital, it is presumable that I ought to know by what 
name it was christened. 
I would therefore most respectfully suggest that you 
take the proper steps at the next session of the Legislature 
to have this clerical error in our charter rectified. 14 
The next subject of dispute between us is, that of intro- 
ducing cancer cases into the hospital for operation. 
Your Boards have forbidden us to admit such cases, even 
in their mildest forms, and in their earliest stages. I have 
no hesitation in saying that in this instance you have trans- 
cended the bounds of your authority. But your Medical 
Board, feeling themselves powerless to resist, have submitted 
to your dictation, and we have admitted no such cases since 
we adopted the rule, acted upon at your command, not to 
do it. 
We had great trouble to procure a title to the land on 
which this hospital stands, and it was done at last by agree- 
ing to give twenty-live free beds forever to the city for the 
use of the land. 
Now, if your Medical Board had been obstinate on the 
cancer question, they could very readily have filled a ward 
with cancer cases by appealing to the municipal authorities. 
Blit they have chosen not to pursue a course which, how- 
ever right in the eye of the law, would have been an end of 
harmony between us. 
The third cause of contention between us is the limitation 
of the number of spectators to fifteen on operating days. I 
have always thought that this is a matter in which your 
Board had no right whatever to interfere, and I think so 
still. If it is right to admit 15, it is just as proper to admit 
17, 18 or 20. You might safely have left this to the discretion 
and better judgment of the surgeons. 
If we do our duty to our patients; if we treat them in a 
kind and considerate manner ; if we give them the time and 
care necessary for their restoration to health; if we give 
them all the advantages of treatment that you yourselves 
could command in your own homes, we have done our whole 
duty, and this should end your personal supervision over 
our actions. 
But when you see fit to invade the sanctity of our operating 
room, and to dictate to us who shall be present, and who 
shall not be present to witness operations, you evidently 
overstep the limits of your authority. And when you come to count the number of doctors we invite to witness ox>era- 
tions, it seems to me, you are not confining yourselves to 
your own legitimate sphere. 
The Woman’s Hospital is to-day one of the great lights of 
gyneological science. The profession throughout the coun- 
try look to it for instruction in the department that it has 
done so much to elucidate. Medical men come up to New 
York every winter to study the clinical advantages to be 
found in the metropolis. 
They come to study various branches, some one thing, 
some another, and some another, but all come to investigate 
the proper treatment of such diseases as are admitted into 
the wards of the Woman’s Hospital. 
They go home with enlarged views and improved methods 
of treatment. They thereby become friends and patrons of 
the hospital ; they send such cases to the hospital, 
as they do not care to be troubled with in a 
general practice, just such as this hospital was founded to 
take care of, and thus they become feeders of the hospital, 
keeping its wards always full. 
But by our illiberality in excluding our country friends 
from the hospital, I find we are making enemies of them. 
They are dissatisfied and complaining. And we are dissat- 
fied, but have been shut out from the privilege of complain- 
ing. Besides all this, your ostracism of the profession may 
place us sometimes in a very awkward position. It may make 
us appear rude, and impolite to our brethren ; when in re- 
ality it is not our fault, but yours. 
Only one hour before entering this room, Dr. Harry Sims 
related to me an incident that should make your Medical 
Board blush for the power that overrules their action. 
And it is this—the day before yesterday, Dr. Peaslee met 
an old friend, an eminent physician living in the country. 
After a little conversation, which naturally turned on the 
Woman’s Hospital, Dr. Peaslee invited his friend to the 
Hospital the next day (yesterday) to witness an important 
operation. He was invited to come at 3 o’clock. The invited 
guest presented himself at the Hospital at about 10 minutes 
after 3. Dr. Peaslee was already in the operating room 16 
Fifteen gentlemen had registered tlieir names, and gone up 
to the amphitheatre. 
Your Board had on this occasion, (and for weeks previous), 
placed a man in the Hall to see that only fifteen doctors 
should be admitted. When Dr. Peaslee’s friend asked the 
man in authority to show him the way to the operating 
room, he was bluntly told he could not do it. Then said the 
gentleman, “ Please take my card to Dr. Peaslee, he invited 
me specially to come, and witness an operation that I would 
like to see. I am sure he would let me go up if he knew I 
were here.” 
The man replied, “ Sir, I am very sorry, but I have no 
authority in the matter. Even Dr. Peaslee could not admit 
you now, for there are already fifteen doctors there, and I 
have orders to admit no more.” 
And thus Dr. Peaslee’s friend, and three or four other 
medical gentlemen who were present, and asking to be ad- 
mitted, were rudely thrust from the walls of this hospital, 
when common politeness, and the honor and interests of the 
hospital, demanded that they should have been kindly re- 
ceived. 
Sir, such a breach of etiquette as this is injurious to the 
members of the Medical Board, who are bound by your ty- 
rannical decision, and it is detrimental to the interests of 
the hospital, which we all have at heart. 
Sir, you have taken the engineer—the man who runs the 
machine that keeps this building warm in winter, and cool in 
summer—and placed him as a spy over your Medical Board, 
to report to you any violation of your rule limiting the num- 
ber of spectators on operating days to fifteen. 
Sir, such an act as this is unworthy of the Board of Gov- 
ernors from which it emanates. For myself, I have never 
heeded your edict, and never will; and if you are aggrieved 
at this, you can have my resignation at your next meeting, 
if you wish it.” 
I have reported this speech verbatim. Every word of it 17 
is true ; and every position assumed defensible. I was 
defending “ the interest and honor of the profession,” al- 
though Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas in their circular 
declare otherwise. I was defending Dr. Peaslee and the in- 
terests of the hospital, not for my ‘‘own personal reasons,” as 
they assert, but on the broad principles of right, and without 
a thought of selfish interests. 
My great mistake was in making this speech on the occa- 
sion of the anniversary meeting. It was in this sense, a vio- 
lation of good taste and propriety, and I have never hesi- 
tated to say so. 
From the time I took my seat, I regretted having made it 
then and there, and I have never ceased to regret it. 
The moment the meeting adjourned, Drs. Peaslee, Emmet 
and Thomas, rushed to the president’s chair to assure 
him and the governing boards that they were in no 
way responsible for this violent speech. Nor were they. 
Nor did I ever hold them responsible for it in any way, 
directly or indirectly. 
It is almost useless to say that this ill-timed speech, falling 
like a clap of thunder from a clear sky, produced intense ex- 
citement in the minds of many who heard its unwelcome 
truths. 
Having declared, upon the impulse of the moment, that 
my resignation should be placed at the disposal of the 
Board of Governors, I felt in honor bound to make good 
my declaration. 
Of course it was not my cool, considerate purpose to sever 
my connection with the institution, of which I was the 
founder. Nor did any one understand that I really meant, 
or wished to retire from the hospital. 
Anxious still to share in the good work done in this noble 
institution I resolved to accompany my resignation with the 
frank avowal that I hoped it would not be accepted, and with 
such an apology for the impropriety of my remarks on the 
occasion as my sense of courtesy dictated. 18 
At the regular monthly meeting of the Board of Lady Man- 
agers, following the anniversary, Dr. Thomas represented 
them to me as being in a very excited state. 
He came to see me while they were in session at the hospi- 
tal, and said I must write an apology to them. I told him 
to write it, and I would sign it. He kindly did so, and re- 
turned with it to the meeting at the hospital. But the apol- 
ogy did not seem to appease the Board of Lady Managers, 
although Dr. Thomas made a neat little speech, and begged 
the ladies not to enact over the old story of “ Columbus in 
chains after his great discoveries.” 
A few days after this the Medical Board held its regular 
monthly meeting, when I told them that I did not wish to re- 
sign ; did not wish to leave the Hospital at all, and I read to 
them my letter of resignation, and asked if they thought it 
was sufficient. They thought it was all I could say by way 
of apology, and that the Governors would be satisfied with 
it, and would, doubtless, retain me in the Hospital. 
In substance it was as follows: 
Gentlemen.— 
Having said at the annual meeting that I would send in my 
resignation as Surgeon to the Woman’s Hospital, I feel in 
honor bound to do so. 
In taking leave of your honorable body, allow me to say 
that I feel great regret at having said aught to mar the har- 
mony of the anniversary meeting, and I further regret that I 
seized that time and occasion to lay my views before you. 
J. Marion Sims. 
(Signed) 
A day or two after the meeting of the Board of Lady 
Managers, this letter was sent to the Board of Governors, then 
in session, and when the question came before them, 
Mr. Davis rose, and preferred charges of insubordination 
against me, and for such alleged insubordination he insisted 
on my expulsion from the Medical Board. 19 
After a heated discussion my resignation was accepted. 
Two or three days after this, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Emmet 
both told me that they had used their influence with their 
friends in the Board of Governors to retain me in the hos- 
pital, and they each expressed to me great surprise at the 
acceptance of my resignation. 
Subsequently I told Dr. Thomas that I could not but 
blame my associates of the Medical Board, for the accept- 
ance of my resignation by the Board of Governors, as I did 
not think they had done their whole duty by me, although 
they professed to me a wish for me to remain with them. 
Dr. Thomas said they had done all they could. Then I 
said, “Did your Board, as a Board, send a protest, or even 
a request to the Governors to retain me in the hospital.” He 
said, “ No ; they had only acted individually.” I then said, 
“Why did you not act collectively as a Board.” He replied, 
“ We never thought of it.” I rejoined, “ If you had been 
in my place, and I in yours, I would have thought of it, and 
it would have been done.” 
Still entertaining the hope of being restored to my place in 
the hospital, I wrote as follows to Mr. Davis, on the 12th 
January, 1875, three weeks after I left the hospital : “In a 
state of momentary excitement I verbally tendered my 
resignation, and thus honor compelled me to send it in. 
But I accompanied it with an apology as proper and com- 
plete as any gentleman ought to require of another. I read 
this apology to your Medical Board, and they each said 
that it was all that could be desired, and Dr. Emmet and 
Dr. Thomas have both expressed to me their surprise that 
the Board of Governors thought fit to accept my resigna- 
tion under the circumstances.” 
This shows that up to the 12th January, 1875, I believed 
my former associates in the Medical Board were my friends, 
and were doing all they could to retain me in the Hospital. 
I was so blind to the real facts of the situation as to com- 
mit the folly of writing to Mr. Davis (Jan. 12, 1875), as the 20 
leader of the opposition to me, asking him to reconsider his 
course, and to allow me to be restored to the hospital. 
I then called on one of the Board of Governors, who 
had always been one of my best friends, and asked him to 
take a stand to reinstate me, and to my great surprise he told 
me that my associates in the Medical Board were opposed 
to me, and desired the Governors to accept my resignation ; 
urging that the best thing for the interests of the Hospital 
was to get me out of it, as I was a reckless operator, 
and was injuring the reputation of the Hospital. 
I could not have believed this if it had not been told me 
by one of the purest and best of men. Soon after this 
Mr. Stuart ascertained that my pretended friends in 
the Medical Board had furnished Mr. Davis, one of the gov- 
ernors, with some statistics of operations performed at the 
Woman’s Hospital, and that Mr. Davis had used them in the 
Board of Governors, to prove that I was the most reckless, 
and unsuccessful of the surgeons to the hospital, and should 
therefore be put out. These gentlemen may deny technical- 
ly that they furnished Mr. Davis with these statistics. They 
may say he got them from the House Surgeon. But I hold 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas responsible for the act 
whether they furnished them directly or indirectly. They 
did it, and it‘was done at the very time they pretended to be 
my friends, and also pretended to be surprised that the 
Board of Governors should have accej)ted my resignation. 
No wonder they could not as a Board enter a protest 
against my going out of the Hospital, when they were pri- 
vately using their influence with Mr. Davis, and other mem- 
bers of the Board of Governors to put me out. 
Now let us inquire for a moment into the table of statis- 
tics furnished by my associates of the Medical Board to Mr. 
Davis, and which he used with such effect against me in 
the Board of Governors, 
It is as follows : 21 
Number of operations performed in the Woman’s Hospital 
from the 1st May, 1872,, to the 22d December, 1874, (being 
from the day Dr. Sims entered the Hospital till he left it): 
Number of Patients Admitted. 
No. of 
Operations. 
No. of 
Deaths. 
By Dr. Sims 
....237 
215 
14 
“ Dr. Thomas.... 
.... 207 
93 
]] 
“ Dr. Peaslee . ... 
....132 
88 
6 
“ Dr. Emmet . ... 
.... 143 
116 
1 
Mr. Davis flourished this table of statistics before the 
Governors, and proved by it, to the satisfaction of a ma- 
jority, that I was the most unsuccessful of the surgeons 
connected with the Hospital. He refused (I understand,) to 
let any of the Board see the document, saying it was private. 
I do not blame Mr. Davis, but I blame my associates of the 
Medical Board, who armed him with this document without 
explaining to him its true significance. What then is the 
real interpretation of the figures in this statistical table \ 
Of all operations performed, 
Dr. Sims lost 6 TVo per cent. 
“ Thomas “ 11 “ 
“ Peaslee “ 6 “ 
“ Emmet “ one in 116. 
Dr. Emmet should be counted out of this table altogether, 
because the chronic cases he treated, such as vesico-vaginal 
fistula, &c., and which we generally turned over to him, were 
not of a dangerous character, and never resulted fatally. 
The foregoing table shows that I admitted 30 patients 
more than Dr. Thomas, 88 more than Dr. Emmet, and 105 
more than Dr. Peaslee. 
I performed 99 more operations than Dr. Emmet, 122 
more than Dr. Thomas, and 127 more than Dr. Peaslee. 
With a larger number of purely surgical cases than any of 
my associates had, it is reasonable to suppose that I would 
have had relatively a larger number of bad cases, and a larger 22 
relative mortality. But my per centum of mortality as seen 
above is less than Dr. Peaslee’s, and but little more than 
half of that of Dr. Thomas. 
Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, and Thomas know very well, and 
knew it at the time they gave Mr. Davis the statistics of the 
operations performed at the Woman’s Hospital, that they 
were, in a scientific point of view, of no value whatever. But 
Mr. Davis of course did not know this. 
Mr. Davis saw that Dr. Emmet lost but one patient, Dr. 
Peaslee six, Dr. Thomas eleven, and Dr. Sims fourteen. 
Ergo, Dr. Sims was a reckless, dangerous and unsuccessful 
surgeon. 
But one of my cases was a woman who was admitted with 
peritonitis (following the use of a sponge tent before she 
came to the hospital), who died within forty-eight hours 
after admission, and upon whom no operation was performed, 
and should therefore be excluded. Another was a poor woman 
with extra-uterine pregnancy, where the umbilicus was 
opened by ulceration, and there was nothing else to do 
but to enlarge the opening which nature had already made, 
and remove a decomposed foetus which was floating in an im- 
mense quantity of diffluent pus. There was no chance, no hope 
of saving her life, although, to the surprise of everybody, she 
lived eight or ten days afterwards. With these two cases 
excluded, it makes the mortality of my operations 05^80, 
while with them included, it is 6Ty¥, as above stated. 
Dr. Peaslee’s mortality was a fraction greater than mine, 
and Dr. Thomas’ nearly twice as great, although Mr. Davis 
did not so represent it, nor so understand it. 
But all this caviling over statistics, and per-centages on such 
a small scale is ridiculous in the eyes of medical men who 
know anything about it. Drs. Peaslee, Emmet, and 
Thomas, when they were using this table through Mr. 
Davis, ought to have known that it was deceptive. 
Operations must run up into the hundreds be- 
fore we can tabulate them to prove the success, or non- 23 
success of the operator, or rather to prove the actual value 
of one method over another. 
Mr. Spencer Wells has more than once lost in succession 
seven or eight cases of ovariotomy. Suppose he had had these 
unfortunate resul ts at the outset of his brilliant career ? 
Why, he might have been denounced as a reckless and un- 
successful surgeon. But he has had more than twenty suc- 
cessful ovariotomies consecutively under the same general 
plan pursued in his unsuccessful cases. 
All this shows that at one time he had a run of bad cases, 
which must have proved fatal under any circumstances. I 
have known this to happen to Dr. Emmet. It has happened 
to Dr. Peaslee, to myself, and may occur to any one engaged 
in a large practice. 
During my connection with the Woman’s Hospital, I saw 
Dr. Peaslee operate on two cases of ovarian tumours, 
where a fatal result was inevitable, in spite of his 
acknowledged skill. But this proved nothing against him 
as a surgeon. 
The first ten ovariotomies I performed were all successful, 
but a series of bad cases afterwards spoiled the statistics 
that might have been based on the first ten. 
I heard the young men at the Woman’s Hospital in 1878, 
say, that one of our assistant surgeons, a man whom every- 
body loves, was the most successful ovaritomist living, as 
he had cured a hundred per cent, while Spencer Wells and 
Keith cured only ninety per cent, of theirs. The joke was 
seen in the fact that our friend had operated but once, and 
cured his case. Statistics based on decimals are an absurdity, 
and every medical man knows it. 
I would not have noticed the circular of Drs. Peaslee, 
Emmet and Thomas, if they had not unwisely used the 
phrase “unqualifiedly false,” leading our profession, and 
the public to believe it was applicable to me. 
I need hardly say, that those who know me even but 
slightly, know very well that I could not connive at any 
thing “ false.” I leave the subject with a feeling of con- 24 
fidenoe that I have explained everything to the satisfaction 
of every honest, and impartial man in my profession 
I am obliged to leave home for a few months, and I there- 
fore, turn this whole affair over to Mr. Stuart, who is the 
real defendant in this case. 
Having finished, I leave it to my professional brethren to 
judge whether Mr. Stuart was guilty of writing what was 
“unqualifiedly false,” when he said “Dr. Sims defend- 
ed the honor and interests of the medical profession with 
such independence and zeal, that he was forced unwillingly 
to resign his position as one of the surgeons.” 
Was Mr. Stuart guilty of writing what was “unquali- 
fiedly false,” when he said Dr. Sims “ was obliged to leave 
his hospital, and that too, without a word of protest from 
his brethren of the Medical Board?” 
And I leave it to Drs. Peaslee, Emmet and Thomas to 
determine from the facts herein stated whether Mr. Stuart 
was guilty of writing what was “ unqualifiedly false” when 
he said that they “to a man proved ‘invisible’ in the hour 
of conflict.”