BATPAXOM.YOMAXIA: 
\ FIGHT ON -FTII ICS.” 
UY 
JULIUS IIOMBERGEK, M. 1)., 
EYE-SURGEON TO THE TOURO INFIRMARY; I,ATE ASSISTANT TO UR. SICHEl.. 
PARIS; MEMBER OF THE 80CIKTK UNIVERSELLE 
U’OPHTH ALMOLOUIE, Etc., Etc. 
N K VV OKI. I: A N S : 
* 1 MS » . BATPAXOMYOMAXIA: 
A FIGHT ON “ETHICS.” 
BT 
JULIUS HOMBERGER, M. I)., 
EYE-HPRGEON TO THE TOURO INFIRMARY; LATE ASSISTANT TO DR. SICHEL, 
PARI8; MEMBER OF THE 80CIETE UNIVER8ELLE 
D’OPHTHALMOLOOIE, Etc., Etc. 
NEW ORLEANS: 
1 Afl 9 . PREFA C K. 
I have endeavored to explain in these pages the history of my so-called 
expulsion from membership of the American Medical Association. I 
have earnestly striven to connect facts and documents, so that the impar- 
tial reader, professional or laymen, may without difficulty understand my 
position. 
The putt's and advertisements which adorn the cover of this pamphlet, 
are selected from a mass of similar documents, which may bo found in 
the advertising columns of widely circulated papers. They emanate from 
general practitioners and specialists in the “front ranks of the profession.” 
Their use is so common that if the American Medical Association were to 
rigidly enforce the letter and spirit of Art. I, Section 3, of the Code of 
Ethics, its meetings might have to be adjourned for want of a quorum of 
eligible members. TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. 
You have Hupportod by word and vote the monstrous proposition to 
expel me from membership of tho American Medical Association, without 
having inquired into tho merits of the ease at issue, nor given me time 
lor defence und vindication. 
I have no reason to suppose that you were guided by malice, but I 
assert that you were blinded by prejudice when you sat in judgment. 
I have a right, therefore, to accuse you of injustice, and I arraign you 
before public opinion for dealing unfairly with my professional reputation. 
It might be politic to use less strong language; I scorn to do so. 
A year has elapsed since you sent forth your verdict. To my friends I 
have explained its injustice, but I have let my enemies freely use the 
weapon, which your inconsiderate proceeding placed into their hands, for 
I hold that a reputation not capable of standing the tost of calumny is not 
worth having. 
It was a satisfaction to me that professional acquaintances ripened iuto 
friendship during the storm of abuse which thundered from every quarter. 
It was a satisfaction to find that ophthalmoscope and cataract-knife were 
stronger than the jealous heralders of a biased verdict! 
But that I have outlived those attacks is no reason why I should not 
perform the duty of holding you to account, and of demanding reparation. 
If you refuso to recognize that you have been wrong and hasty, if you 
lean on the momentary strength of your number, I shall be sorry for 
having addressed you. But one copy of this pamphlet, preserved for a 
few years, will be sufficient to condemn before generations to come, the 
name of every one toojieudstrong, or too indolent, to satisfy the behests 
of justice. 
Prove to me that I am wrong. Cite me before a court medical, and 
destroy my evidence. Prove that one word I say is a falsehood, and I 
stand convicted. But read yourself your arguments and debates on the 
subject. A letter is read from a so-called prominent physician in New 
Orleans, inquiring whether I am a member of your Association. I had 
ceased to be a member in May, 1866. By the blunder of a Secretary, the 
mistake of a presiding officer, and, in consequence of the short meetings 
of the Association, this resignation, which can bo offered at any time 
according to the laws of all scientific societies, was first not delivered in 
time and then referred to a committee, instead of being accepted at once. 
I, meanwhile, naturally knew nothing of such a thing as referring a resig- 
nation to a committee. The resignation of a subject serving his country, 
might not be accepted, 6ince his service is a duty, but unconditional life- 
membership of a society is an absurdity. And in 1868, having forgotton 
tho existence almost of the American Medical Association, I suddenly 
hear that I have been expelled—unheard and undefended. I think, indeed, that no language would be too strong to stigmatize the 
unseemly haste and shallowness, the disregard of professional courtesy 
of which the participants in this wanton offence have been guilt)', and 
I believe it is only just that I should denounce the cowardly de- 
vices, the base insinuations, the fantastic falsehoods, invented by avarice 
and jealousy, to injure my professional character, on the strength of 
this pretended expulsion from the American Medical Association. 
I repeat that I do not think that you were actuated by personal motives 
when you rushed into the rendering of your verdict. The best evidence 
of that conviction is this appeal to you, an appeal not for indulgence but 
for justice. 
And that I demand justice only, you may see from the documents which 
constitute the chief part of this pamphlet. These documents, which I 
recommend to your impartial perusal, prove beyond cavil that I took 
advantage Qfily of my right to resign from membership after earnest 
efforts, in fact every constitutional manner of obtaining the reformatory 
measures indispensable for my interests, had signally failed. They prove 
that I had, orally, and in writing, announced my resignation in May, 
1866. They further prove that advertising in New Orleans was sanctioned 
by usage; that important operations were frequently reported by the 
public press; so that, even as a member of your association, my adver- 
tisements could be justified by the long-established tendency to adver- 
tising among the medical community of New Orleans. 
Permit me to recall to your mind the main points of the case. The 
question before you was not, and is not, whether advertising is a legitimate 
means of acquiring practice; it is not whether the dignity of the pro- 
fession demands compliance with your Code of Ethics. On these ques- 
tions I cannot agree with the general opinion of your association. I have 
laid down the reasons for which I consider advertising legitimate and 
proper, and in no way inconsistent with the highest views of professional 
etiquette, provided, of course, the statements published are in accordance 
with truth and honesty. You have, however, an undoubted right to 
disapprove of advertising; but my right to hold a different opinion is 
equally strong. A'o one, when I read my report, attempted to refute its 
arguments. The ethical question under consideration was not decided 
bv discussion but by vote. Satisfied that the exceptional position of the 
specialist would soon be appreciated, and determined to win the position 
to which no one of you ever dared to deny that I am entitled, I offered 
my resignation in optima forma. I asked not to be released, I did not 
request that my resignation be granted as a favor. I requested the Sec- 
retary to announce my resignation. The reasons for my withdrawal were 
plain enough, and had been freely given in the American Journal of 
Ophthalmology, my Report of 1865, and in numerous debates during 
the sessions of your association. 
No unbiased judge can doubt my right to resign; more than that, my 
resignation was, under the circumstances, the only step consistent with 
dignity and principle. All this is abundantly illustrated by every line I wrote, by every word I 
said iu reference to the subject at issue, aud, therefore, without fear aud 
free from wrong, suns peur et sans reproche, I demand justice and equity, 
and express a firm hope that you are great enough to say without false 
shame: We were wrong! 
Julius Homberger, M. D. 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RELATIONS OF SPECIALISTS 
TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. 
• Kver Mince Society existed. Disappointment has been preaclimg, ‘Put not yonr trust 
in Ix-ffislation,’ ami yet the trust in legislation seems scarcely diminished. 
“In their efforts to remedy si>ecillc evils, legislators have continually caused collateral 
evils they never looked for.” 
Tho text of our remarks, shall bo these two sentences, taken from 
Herbert Spencer’s Essay on Over-Legislation. 
Previous to the adoption of the Code of Ethics of the American Medical 
Association, tho sense of professional duties and responsibility was, there 
ran be no doubt, as keen among professional men as to-day. We do not 
think that there was a physician, who, being at the same time a gentle- 
man, needed the recommendations contained in the first chapter of that 
code to be written out for him in tho shape of paragraphs, seriously 
tolling him, “that he ought to unite tenderness with firmness, and con- 
descension with authority;” “that ho shall treat his eases with attention, 
steadiness and humanity;” “that he shall observe secrecy and delicacy;” 
“not make too many visits “not make gloomy prognostications;” “not 
abandon hopeless cases;” and other advice which may be well meant but 
cannot bo regarded but as absolutely unnecessary and useless. 
Whoever is lit to be a physician must certainly know from the intuitive 
knowledge of propriety which a gentleman possesses, how to behave 
himself at the bedside; and only gentlemen can be physicians deserving 
tho name; the idea to inculcate propriety by a code of ethics, voluntarily 
adopted, to others than gentlemen, is preposterous. Was it ever supposed 
necessary by the respectable women in tho community, to fortify their 
respectability by publishing a Code of Ethics [and demanding conformity 
thereto on the part of their virtuous sisters so as not to be confounded 
with prostitutes '( It strikes us as equally absurd that it should be neces- 
sary to embody for tho government of physicians the common rules of 
gentlemanly propriety in a code of ethics so that they should not be 
confounded with quacks! 
It might be, perhaps, profitable and timely to expose the puerility of 
embodying also an article of ten paragraphs on the duties of patients 
towards their physician, a proceeding about as ludicrous as if there was 
an Essay there on the “duties of Sandwich Islanders to the Crown of 
England;” but we refrain, as wo are not appointed to criticise the laws of 
Ethics of the American Medical Association: nevertheless, we desire to 
show by these examples, and those which we cite hereafter, that from a 
practical and scientific point of view, that document does not require to 
1)6 handled with tho piety and esteem which some old. books, though 
obsolete, are sometimes entitled to, either for their intrinsic merit, or for 
the care bestowed by the authors upon their production. 
Wo only therefore allude to the bad taste of articles in which it is laid 
down as a rule, “that physicians ought to attend gratuitously to physi- 
cians, their wives and children;” attempting to define whether and to 8 
what extent vicarious offices should be rendered by one physician to an- 
other; the barbarous proposition to refuse consultations with physicians 
who are not recognized as “regular” by the “Association;” the unneces- 
sary hints given in the chapter on Consultations to behave decently at the 
bedside, etc., etc , etc. 
While satisfied that the American Medical Association will agree with 
us that all these attempts at legislation are superfluous and practically 
inoperative, and that we will not be gainsaid, if we utter our belief, that 
it is not in consequence of the adoption of these rules as a code of laws, 
that good feeling and understanding between practitioners have improved 
since their publication, we now beg leave to enter upon the essential 
subject matter of our Essay, to which the whole of the second chapter 
has the most intimate relation, but particularly the third paragraph, 
which reads as follows: 
“It is derogatory to the dignity of the profession to resort to public 
advertisements, or public cards, or hand-bills, inviting the attention 
of individuals affected with particular diseases; publicly offering advice 
and medicine to the poor gratis, or promising radical cures: or to 
publish cures and operations in the daily prints or suffer such publi- 
cations to be made; to laymen to be present at operations; to boast of 
cures and remedies, to adduce certificates of skill and success, or to 
perform any similar! acts. These are the ordinary practices of empirics 
and are highly reprehensible in a regular physician.” 
It would be an insult, we think, to the common sense of this body to 
defend before it the right of a physician to pursue special studies. We 
trust there is no one among you sufficiently prejudiced or ill-informed 
not to know that the strides which our science has made of late years 
have been the consequence of some of the best minds in the profession 
concentrating their thoughts on one particular branch of medical science. 
We feel that to defend, in the year 1865, the principle of division of labor, 
would be considered by an enlightened profession to be a ridiculous act 
of supererogation. It strikes us as equally superfluous to defend the 
right of a well-educated physician to make use of the results of his special 
observations and practice; in other words, the right and liberty to reap 
the fruits of a special study in a special branch can not with a shadow of 
justice be denied to specialists. 
Take from the specialist the right to use every honorable means in his 
power to extend his practice, and you practically do the same thing as if 
you would forbid a general practitioner to make his numerous calls in a 
carriage. Say to a specialist, you have no right to put your name in a 
newspaper, and in reference to him your law works quite differently, and 
produces different results, than the same interference produces upon the 
general practitioner. The latter more or less expects his practice from 
his immediate neighborhood; he moveslthere, where the majority of his 
patients reside, and every family he visits professionally, yields to him a 
proportion towards his yearly average of income; the specialist, on the 
contrary, in order to render himself useful to society, in order to advance 
his reputation and income, must spread his name in wider circles; his 
reputation must extend over a larger surface: for a circle or community 
which would yield a splendid return for the services of a general prac- 
titioner wTould suffice neither properly to support a specialist, nor to 
secure a practice sufficiently large to stimulate his scientific energy. 
To this position may be urged the objection that, the specialist neces- 
sarily being at the same time a physician of general attainments and 
knowledge in medicine other than his mere specialty, he may and should 
in the commencement of his career attend to general practice and gradu- 
ally devote more and more special attention to some special class of 
diseases. This idea is radically vicious. For in the first place the 
cultivation of those branches of medical science which are sufficiently 
advanced to be practiced as specialties, demands unremitting zeal and undivided attention on tho part of those devoted to them, and faculties 
which would produce by their exercise splendid results would be dissi- 
pated in the routine and drudgery of general practice. Need we cite any 
examples to prove so plain a proposition ? Universal experience has 
taught us that, with man as with machinery, the more perfect his adapta- 
bility for the successful performance of any special function, the less will 
ho bo enabled to perforin any other. Well does Herbert Spencer say: 
“Ail instrument intended to perform tho double function of shaving and 
carving will not shave as well as a razor nor carve as well as a carving 
knife.” 
In the second place, it is but fair and proper that specialists should 
leave the field of general practice to those whose intelligent aid they covet 
and desire for the purpose ot securing a special practice. 
It must not be interred from this that we hold it necessary or even desi- 
rable that general practitioners should lend their support and patronage 
to specialists on condition only that tho latter do not interfere with their 
general practice. We would deprecate any such bargain as undignified and 
improper. We would not admit that specialists should offer any such 
petty inducements for patronage on the part of physicians in general 
practice* but we may safely assert that specialists will not find it to their 
interest to undertake general practice, and they certainly must always feel 
that tlieir limited experience does not justify them in attempting to prac- 
tice indiscriminately. 
This brings us to a vital point of our argument. We would most 
emphatically lay down the proposition that no physician has a right to 
attend any case, unless he is satisfied that ho is able to do it lull justice. 
A village doctor may set a limb, he may perform tracheotomy, or operate 
on a case of vesico-vaginal fistula, precisely for the same reason that the 
captain of a shiD in an emergency cu's off the leg of an injured sailor, 
no surgeon b*ing present or readily procurable; or a physican may be 
justified iu 'doing his best for such patients whose circumstances forbid 
them to resort to tho most competent authority, but the moral right to 
attend to patients who apply for relief does not extend any farther. If a 
blind man applies for a delicate operation on tlie eye to a practitioner in 
whom he has confidence, that confidence is only then justified and re- 
warded if the medical adviser indicates to the inquirer the safest mode of 
gaining his eyesight; and it is an abuse of this confidence, and breach of 
the trust reposed in him, if the physician undertakes tho operation if not 
fully [competent for the task. It cannot be denied, then that it is the 
duty of the practit oner to send the patient to a specialist iu order to 
discharge his obligations to his patient. 
It is hardly necessary to po.nt out the various circumstances which 
may make the existence of competent specialists a source of comfort and a 
blessing to the general practitioner, for, fortunately, the special branches 
have already borne such brilliant fruits that we need not fear their being 
ignored by the scientific physician and surgeon. We must rather turn 
now to the most important of the points at issue, the question of adver- 
tising as a means of publicity. 
The New York State Medical Society (we nmy hope not after any 
thing like mature reflection, for a deliberate enactment of illiberal pro- 
positions is hardly to be expected from a body of intelligent scientists,) 
Las discountenanced and prohibited the advertisement on the part of a 
specialist of bis residence iu a medical paper, and has even gone to 
the length of objecting to the indication on business cards of the 
specialties, which praciit oners may choose to follow. The Boston 
Medical Journal, on the other liaml. thinks those advertisements in 
medical journals, which, in Boston, are sanctioned by usage, not only 
justifiable, but even advantageous to professional and public interests, 
lbr no orthodox paper or orthodox practitioner has hitherto been found 
who dares to assert tlie right of tho physician to advertise wherever he 10 
pleases, and as much as he pleases, in the mistaken belief that advertising 
in itself is derogatory to professional dignity. When we ask why, we are 
answered, because it is known that the advertisers of medical commodities 
are generally men without education, mountebanks and pickpockets in 
disguise. How absurd ! For the same reason the respectable merchant 
might give up advertising because would-be merchants every day try to 
get money by pretentious announcements. The auctioneer who sells 
thousands of pieces of goods of all kinds should cease to announce his 
sales because Peter Funk, next door, sells brass watches for gold chro- 
nometers, and advertises his sales. A mining company conducted by a 
score of men of untarnished reputation, should abstain from advertising 
the sale of their stock, or refrain from giving any public notice of their 
existence, because a bubble company, with a lot of bogus names, or a set 
of adventurers at its head, attempts to extract, by means of the public 
press, money from the pockets of the ignorant. Because Mr. Snow, the 
prophet and medium, or Mrs. Hatch, the celebrated spiritualist, invites 
the “believers” to attend a discourse on Sabbath evening, the Iiiglit 
Rev. Bishop Potter and the Rev. Mr. Beecher evidently tarnish the 
dignity of the body clerical by allowing the advertisements of their 
sermons to be published in the very same paper and in the very same 
column! • . 
You see here to what incongruities leads the establishment of illogical 
laws. Because imposters illegitimately and improperly use one of the 
most glorious and beneficial results of the art of printing, the inestimable 
advantages of public advertisements by means of the daily journals, you 
lay down as a law that on account of such perversion, the same instru- 
ments must not be used for good and legitimate ends. It is obvious that 
an advertisement containing a true representation of the commodities 
which a member of the community has for sale and exchange, cannot be 
considered in any way but legitimate, while it is equally clear that a 
misrepresentation must reflect discredit on its author. 
When we examine the reason why prejudices which are so clearly 
demonstrable to be prejudices, should have taken such firm hold and be 
so deeply rooted in the minds of an intelligent class of the community, a 
class which, from the nature of their studies, should be the strongest 
exponents of liberal opinions, we find that they have their root in an 
hallucination with which physicians have flattered themselves, namely, 
that the nature of the services of a medical man differs essentially from 
all other services rendered by members of the community to each other. 
Why the medical profession should believe that the service which they 
offer to the public—advice—is distinguishable in its nature from other 
services, is difficult to understand. A physician gathers his knowledge of 
disease as an engineer gathers his knowledge of the laws of mechanics, or 
an artist his knowledge of esthetics. They sell to their clients, patients, 
or patrons those special inferences which their general knowledge enables 
them to draw. They are paid according to the value of their services. 
Such transactions the public justly considers to be strictly commercial. 
But the profession believe that the patient owes them, even after the fee 
is paid, an eternal debt of gratitude. There is no reason that such a 
belief, nourished as it is by illusion and conceit, should any longer be 
upheld. 
There is no reason why the laws of free trade should not be applicable 
to medical services, as well as to all others. The plea that the public 
must, in its ignorance, be protected against quacks and empirics, is no 
more valid than the laws which in despotic countries protect the people 
from liberal newspapers and “dangerous” religious dogmas ; laws which 
require the baker and butcher and carpenter to have passed an appren- 
ticeship and journeymanship before he has the right to make bread, or 
shoes, or tables. 
Whoever sells bad commodities, whoever sells them at too high 11 
u rate, must, as experience ban shown, invariably be beaten and sup- 
planted by the competition of those who sell good commodities at a 
reasonable rate. Now, therefore, if there is not sufticient superiority 
in the advice of an experienced and competent physician over that of 
a quack and empiric to guarantee a better success to the former, then 
there is no occasion to warn the public and protect the public from the 
practices of the latter, a proposition which certainly would not be 
endorsed. But if, as we may safely assume, the practical results of 
scientific medicine and surgery are sufficient to ensure a success to the 
scientist which the quack can never obtain, then there is no valid argu- 
ment which can be advanced to prohibit the practitioner of medicine, as 
well as the specialist, from proceeding with a view of securing practice 
in the same way as the dealers iu commodities or the vendors of other 
services. We have already alluded to the fact that the interests of the 
general practitioner are different, and we would have a practical demon- 
stration of this fact, if to-day it would be declared legitimate for a medi- 
cal man to advertise. The general practioner would not avail himself of 
his right, because he knows that it is necessary for him only to establish 
his reputation within a small circle; he knows that only u limited number of 
patients can muke use of his services, because it is almost impossible for 
a patient to employ, as a regulur physician, one who resides from him 
even the distance of a few miles. We will admit that it is already differ- 
ent in some extent, in the case of the surgeon. He also draws his patients 
from long distances, and it might be urged that an oculist, aurist, or a 
specialist in the diseases of the chest or of the womb, can establish his 
reputation in the same manner as a surgeon. Charlatans, who resect 
jaws and knee joints, tie the carotid artery, or perform staphylorapliy, 
do not exist, as immediately fatal effects would too clearly expose their 
iguoiance; while those who attempt to cure cataracts by eyewaters or 
needle operations, or deafness by taking out fictitious polypi, consumption 
by blowing medicated steam in the mouth, and hypertrophy of the womb 
by cauterising its neck, are innumerable, und because their manipulations 
so closely imitate to the eye of the inexperienced the operations of the 
regular practitioner, that many of the public, accustomed to seek for 
celebrities in the daily prints, and unaware of the existence of a higher 
authority than that of the “advertising quack,” must needs believe, 
after having been deceived, that there is no help for them. But it is not 
necessary to dwell on all the disadvantages which the unphilosopliical 
legislation of the “Code of Ethics” has fostered and created, and, unless 
abolished, will continue to engender and to perpetuate. If we ask you 
whether quackery has increased or diminished, it will unanimously have 
to be declared that humbug and imposition were never carried to a higher 
pitch than at the present moment; that the consumption of patent medi- 
cines is on the increase; and if we inquire whether the social influence 
which physicians enjoy or ought to enjoy, has increased, whether it is 
sufficient for one of the profession to say that ho is a physician in order 
to impress every one with the certainty that he is dealing with a gentle- 
man, if wo were inquire for an answer to this, we are afraid candor will 
three the admission that the title of Doctor is too frequently prostituted 
to insure regard by the mero fact of boing possessed. 
Homoeopathic and Eclectic Colleges have spread in spite of innumerable 
—perhaps even unwarrantable—accusations from the members of the 
American Medical Association, and the legislatures of the different States 
have never been ready to recognize the influence and rights of the “regular” 
medical profession. We would therefore in vain seek iu that direction 
for any beneficial results of the Code of Ethics. 
Did you expect by means of the Code of Ethics to elevato the dignity 
of the professiou ? Confess yourselves disappointed, and if the profes- 
sion stands higher than it did twenty years ago, admit that your law on 
advertising did not produce that effect! Did you anticipate that it would 12 
annihilate quackery ? Then look at the columns of our newspapers and 
candidly state that you have been mistaken; that, as Herbert Spencer 
says, you have in your attempt to remedy a specific evil, the low state of 
professional dignity, caused a collateral evil in the unrestricted and un- 
controllable spread of imposition and quackery in all its forms! Nay, 
you have done worse; you have not only not prevented quackery, you have 
not only not protected the public from imposition and injury at the hands 
of quacks, but your Code of Ethics has had the inevitable effect of pro- 
tecting quackery by leaving it the free and uninterfered-with monopoly 
of the public press. You have said to the regular physician and spe- 
cialist: If you avail yourself of the public press to announce to the 
community the achievements of your scientific attainments, and the suc- 
cess of your treatment or operations, we will read you out of the pro- 
fession; and that same prohibition and threat were equivalent to saying 
to the charlatan: ‘-Now is your time to ply your profitable but dishonera- 
ble calling, gull the public by advertisements inserted in the daily jour- 
nals by the yard, and we will carefully watch and guard your interest by 
preventing any advertisement of a respectable physician or specialist 
from entering into competition with you.” 
Up to the present time specialists have not been very numerous, and 
the time that har elapsed since some of them have been bold enough— 
for it was boldness in the face of stubborn and unreasoning opposition— 
to be specialists, and to attend to their specialty exclusively, dates back 
but a tew years. Within a few more years they will form a strong minor- 
ity, nay, they may, in the larger cities at least, eveu be in a majority. 
What will be the necessary consequence of an increase in their numbers 
if the profession continues by legislation to iuterfere with their interests ? 
Depend upon it, that we do not make the demand unadvisedly or incon- 
siderately for the recognition of the right of tho specialist to advertise. 
The specialists have more at stake, and are more interested to preserve 
the distinction between the scientific physician and the quack than gen- 
eral practitioners can be. If quack-eye-and-ear-doctors, clap doctors and 
abortionists are a disgrace to the profession at large, they are much more 
so to scientific specialists, the latter being in a greater danger to be con- 
founded with them, than the members of the profession at large. Suppose 
we would for a moment admit that the medical profession in general 
might put down quackery by its influence in the legislative bodies of the 
country, or by act of Congress, would it then not be the duty of the pro- 
fession immediately to rally and to carry through the measures necessary 
to effect that end; especially if they hold specialties and specialists in 
sufficient esteem to deem them worthy of the effort? If they do not do 
so, is it not an insult to every specialist, as such inactivity would show 
that the profession neglected the interest of and repudiated those upon 
whom at the same time it thinks proper to impose laws. But as we have 
already stated, it is likely that the influence of the whole profession would 
not suffice to carry such laws through our legislative halls, as instances 
innumerable have proved the insufficiency of professional influence in 
legislation, or at least have proved that the gold of non-professional 
purses weighs heavier in the balance of Minerva, than the humanitarian 
arguments of medical reformers, and at all events it is certain, that many 
years would have to elapse before adequate laws could be enforced through- 
out the whole of the United States. 
What we would ask. is not a vigorous pursuit of lobbying in all its de- 
tails, but simply that you abolish the rules which in your wisdom you 
have created twenty years ago, and abolish your prohibitions against ad- 
vertising, and we are convinced that the natural laws of competition will 
work out the end desired by us all; the abolition of quackery. Medical 
men in this country have, though medical practice is virtually open to all, 
attained a fair average of knowledge and skill, and may with pride be 
compared to the physicians and surgeons in countries where examinations ami certificates without end are requisite to procure a license lor practis- 
ing; druggists in this country, without State examinations, know how to 
put up prescriptions as well as in France, England or Germany, at.d find 
it. without the occasional visits of a body of supervisors of drugs, to their 
interest to keep good preparations. Hankers and business men are as 
honest as in Europe, though they cannot be imprisoned for debt, and may 
escape payment of money they owe by a number of dishonest practices; 
clergymen are as learned as in Europe, without examination and obliga- 
tory education; bakers bake bread equally well, and shoemakers make 
as good shoes, though there is no law requiring the proving of capacity 
before making an attempt to bake bread or to make shoes. 
It is certain that there are many among the profession who will doubt 
the possibility to throw quacks out of employment by competition. Those 
will say that the public wants to be deceived; that the greatest liar among 
advertisers will attract the greatest number of patients, that scientific 
physicians will never have the cunning of the charlatan requisite and 
essential to make advertising profitable; that scientific and honest men, 
when they stoop to advertise, will soon be impregnated with the mer- 
cenary spirit characterizing the irresponsible advertiser, and lapse into 
the same meretricious practices. Of those we would ask, whether the 
achievements of modern surgery, ophthalmology, gynecology, etc., are 
not brilliant enough to impress every one, even if soberly and simply 
stated, with admiration and esteem? Whether they actually believe that 
medicine is so fictitious a science, that success must be always a boast, 
and that lying is necessary to attract the public? Whether in medical 
matters the old adage that honesty is the best policy must be reversed to 
be true ? Whether, as it is undeniable that advertising attracts patients, 
it is not more certain that a specialist who advertises and thus attracts 
many patients, can more easily afford to be candid and honest than those 
who get but scanty practice without advertisements, and thus may have, 
in their effort to earn a living, almost an excuse for hiding the truth ? 
It would be vain to attempt to answer these questions otherwise than 
by the stale arguments which a conservative but unreasoning spirit has 
opposed to liberty of the press, liberty of speech, fiee trade, and innumer- 
able oilier reforms wnich have been achieved, or partially achieved, within 
the last century, and which will one day be so completely and fully recog- 
nized that a more enlightened age will wonder at the comparatively slow 
pace of their progress and condemn their opponents as we do now the 
persecutors of religious dissenters, the institutors of the “holy” inquisi- 
tion, and the upholders of errors without number which were considered 
the indestructible framework of society during the feudal ages! 
With great justice there may be adduced anotln r forcible argument in 
favor ot the right to advertise. There is no influence which paralyzes 
energy to such mu extent as the impossibility to exercise faculties for want 
of material to exercise them on. Take lrom the artisan the wood, stone, 
or paper necessary tor his work, limit the supply of cotton to the spinner, 
impoverish the painter so as to make him unable to buy colors and can- 
vas, have the sculptor without marble and the musician without his instru- 
ment, and his faculties and energy, however brilliant they may be, will 
sutl'er from the want of being exercised. What to these material, colors, 
marble, piano, or violin, is to the practitioner the patient. Prevent him 
from having patients, and he will lapse into inactivity, while nothing will 
stimulate his energy, liis sc ientific zeal and thirst for knowledge, like a 
continuous demand upon them. The general practitioner who enters the 
profession may settle iu a remote village, and secure a practice without 
difficulty, only perhaps not a very remunerative one, while the specialist, 
who must select a large city, is again aggrieved by the working of your 
Code of Ethics, which has been framed without regard and esteem for 
him—as the framers of the Constitution of the Uuited States forgot the in- 
terests and rights of the negro. 14 
Tlie Code of Ethics was drawn up at a time when scientific specializa- 
tion of medicine was so much in its infancy, that those who presumed to 
devote themselves to a special class of diseases on the pretence that they 
had discovered new processes of curing the “ills that flesh is heir to, ” 
were looked upon, perhaps properly, with disfavor and distrust by the 
profession. You have therefore, by means of your code, attempted to 
combat what you feared would eventually flower into charlatanism. But 
continuing your code formed under circumstances no longer existing, con- 
tinuing prohibitions originally directed against charlatans, against a 
class of men whom you must confess to be scientists, and who, by their 
achievements, have wrung from you tributes of praise and admiration, is 
a proceeding which must prove as inoperative and injurious, as would be 
the attempt to govern society of the present day by a system of laws 
applicable to a state of barbarism. 
The only position which the profession could take against the specialist 
insisting upon the recognition of the rights claimed by him in this report, 
would be the following. General practitioners would say to specialists: 
“You have a right to exist, and to follow your pursuits, because as special- 
ists you are enabled to heal certain classes of disease with better success 
than we are. We admit your right, we approve of its exercise. You 
want to guard your interest by abolishing our Code, but we believe that 
you would only injure yourselves, and consequently the whole profession. 
You complain that your interests are infringed upon by laws which were 
launched against quackery, and which you believe to have been abortive, 
and have only injured you. You iusist upon our incapacity to destroy 
quackery by the means that we have adopted. You attack our opposition 
to what we deem the doubtful right of advertising on your part. Let us 
try to conciliate our interests and views, and compromise the matter. If 
you waive your right, or what you deem such, we will richly compensate 
you. We will exhibit our willingness to help you in your pursuits. We 
will use our influence to forward your interests. Every patient who ap- 
plies to us with a disease of the eye we will send to an oculist, every case 
of syphilis to a syphilidologist, every case of disease of females to a 
gynecologist, and so on. We will thus by our united patronage enable 
you to put down quacks in the manner you propose, by competition. We 
are able to send you, by canvassing your merits, as many cases as the 
quack now attracts by his advertisements. We will solomnly pledge our- 
selves to leave the field of legitimate specialism to specialists, if special- 
ists will pledge themselves on their part to abide by our code, to respect 
what we choose to call dignity, and to avoid what in our opinion is detri- 
mental to the social standing of our profession.” 
Observe that we do not assume that you are prepared to 
speak to specialists in this manner, because we know that you could 
not be induced to relinquish the treatment of what you call simple diseases 
of the eye, the womb, or the nervous system; because we know that it is 
often impossible to define the limit between general disease and special 
disease. But should you even go so far as to abrogate your right of 
attending to a disease of the eye, ear, throat, womb or chest; should you, 
in order to bind us to abide by the Code of Ethics, make a proposition so 
undeniably against your interests, we would emphatically deprecate any 
such arrangement, because in our opinion it is not in conformity with the 
dignity of specialists to accept it. Such a new law would within a short 
time work as detrimentally to your interests as the Code of Ethics now 
works against that of specialists. You cannot be deprived of your right 
to treat whatever case you think yourselves able to do justice to; and that 
you should send those patients, whom you cannot or dare not take under 
your care, to specialists whom you know to be competent, instead of leav- 
ing them to the searching of newspaper celebrities, is simply a matter of 
justice, but not a compensation which can be held out to induce us to 
compromise. And besides it is of paramount importance that specialists should not be mere protects of the geueral practitioner nor dependent on 
him for patronage, but simply competitors pursuing a similar calling, 
circumscribed within narrower limits. An arrangement such as the one 
supposed would make specialists entirely dependent on the profession. 
Your patronage would be accorded to those of their number whom you 
would like best, and to those who would force themselves upon your 
notice. The personal dignity of specialists would suffer more in this 
manner than by advertising their cards in every newspaper. And finally, 
it would not by any means abolish quuckery by competition. The public 
would misinterpret your intentions. Physicians would appear to have 
formed a Trades-Union against the great men of the eighth page of the 
newspaper. The quack would thrive and flourish in spite of the Protect- 
ive Association, and not fail to take the air of a persecuted genius, who 
cannot succeed in inculcating the advantage of his new system upon an 
“ obstinate, old-fogyish and illiberal body of men.” This being already a 
dodge resorted to by the advertising fraternity, how much more would 
such a charge assume credibility in the eyes of the community, in the 
face of what would seem an organized opposition to ‘ ‘ the great medical 
inventions and discoveries of our age.” 
And now, gentlemen, concluding our plea for the abolition of that part 
of the Code of Ethics animadverted upon, we beg for our views your 
earnest and careful consideration. We do not expect that propositions so 
startling and radical should be accepted by your body without consider- 
able opposition and debate. We know well the clogs and hindrances 
which conservatism has ever laid in the path of reform. History has 
furnished us with examples too numerous and too recent to be lightly 
passed over or forgotten, that truth however plain and undeniable, that 
rights however sacred and just, cannot force their immediate acceptance 
in the face of moss-grown prejudices and vested interests ! But it is use- 
less to attempt to organize resistance to reform, the correctness of the 
basis of which must be admitted by the very men who oppose its intro- 
duction ! Laws and rights, the poet says, are transmitted like an heredi- 
tary disease from one generation to another, and what the poet paradoxi- 
cally proclaimed years ago, the history of the last few decades has splen- 
didly vindicated as an eternal truth. 
The great thinkers and social reformers of our time have directed their 
attention to thousands of questions, and achieved relorm in matters in- 
numerable; but the basis of their efforts was always the restriction of law 
within its proper sphere—the administration ol justice. The abolition 
of the corn laws, the gradual abolition of international restrictions of 
trade, the emancipation in Ireland, the abolitions of slavery in Russia 
and the United States, the freedom of the trades and abolition of the 
guilds in Germany and Holland—all these glorious results of the collect- 
ive experience aud wisdom of two thousand years are based on the recog- 
nition of the principle, that every man has a right to be free, and that beiny 
free tie is capable to work his way and to achieve his ends in the best manner, if 
laws, created with a view, as has been cleverly said, to yuard by present 
wisdom against future folly, leave him unfettered and untrannneled. Give to 
the specialist, gentlemen, the right to exercise his faculties and to find 
u market for them, and be assured he will not only be able to keep up 
his dignity without an ethical guide, but he will also, by his scientific 
knowledge, according to the law of competition, irresistibly throw out of 
existence that spurious article and sham of service, the advice of the 
quack ! Give to the specialist his freedom and he will seek out for him- 
self the most expeditious road to fame and fortune, as general prac- 
titioners have always done, and in the exercise of this freedom ho will 
no longer feel, as heretofore, that his association with the profession is a 
source of limitation and restriction of his legitimate rights, but he will 
show that ho feels it a duty to himself, and to the generosity of the 
noblo and honorable profession with which lie is associated, and which frankly accorded to him his rights, that neither he nor the profession shall 
suffer by the slightest sacrifice of the true dignity of the scientist and 
gentleman! 
Julius Hojiberger, 
Chairman of Committee. 
HISTORY OF THE REPORT AND LETTER OF RESIGNATION. 
This report was presented by myself as Chairman of the Committee in 
question. My fellow-members, the late Dr. Worthington Hooker, Dr. 
Bainbridge and Dr. Horatio K. Storer, having refused to sign it, the 
American Medical Association resolved to lay it on the table as a minority 
report and not to print it in the transactions. It was published in the July 
number of the New York Social Science Eeview, 1865. The subject, 
however, was referred to another committee, of which Dr. Henry I. 
Bowditch, of Boston, was the chairman. So illiberal and unfair had 
been, in my opinion, the treatment of the subject under consideration 
during the debates in Boston, 1865, that I resolved to send in my 
resignation at once. Several members of the New York Delegation, 
however, thought that since the question was not decided until the newly 
appointed committee would have reported in Baltimore, in the following 
year 1866, I would not be justified in withdrawing without hearing 
the report by Dr. Henry I. BowMitch. I could not deny the justice 
of this remark and withheld my resignation, though almost certain that a 
general practitioner would not be able to settle the points satisfactorily. 
I went to the meeting in Baltimore to hear Dr. Bowditcli’s report. My 
fears were realized. The gentleman from Boston advocated the obsoleto 
views of the Code of Ethics. I saw that a philosophical investigation 
of the merits of the subject according to the laws of social science, could 
not for years be expected from a body like the American Medical Associa- 
tion. I saw no hope whatever to advance the adoption of those radical 
measures which constitute, in my opinion, the only means of successful 
reform. I had personally become unpopular for having been the advocate 
of distasteful measures and propositions. I am now convinced, more 
than even then, that the time is not far when the medical profession will 
universally adopt the views which I feel proud of having first boldly pro- 
claimed. I consider it a mistake now that as a strauger, in a position so 
very unlike that of the American general practitioner, I attempted a 
crusade against what is the necessary consequence of the American mode 
of medical education and scientific development. But in Baltimore, in 
1866, when after the reading of Dr. Bowditch’s report, I reached the 
platform disappointed in finding that I had been preaching to deaf ears; 
meeting with distrust and opposition, where I had expected to convince 
by straightforward argument and logical acumen, I felt differently. I 
stood on the platform apparently quiet, but deeply agitated. I accused 
the association of unfairly dealing with me. I said that I had been entitled to a careful investigation of the subject; that my report ought to 
have been printed just on account of its startling radicalism; that it was 
unjustifiable to refer the matter to another committee instead of set- 
tling it by argument. Unable, I said in closing my remarks, to fight 
without the hope of victory, and protesting against the treatment I had 
received, I would now retire from my gladiatorial experiments and cease to 
consider myself a member of the Association. 
The medical papers, assailed me then vigorously. What I had said was 
misrepresented, and 1 was glad afterwards that I had cautiously sent in my 
resignation in writing. 1 was resolved on my return from Europe to 
settle iu New Orleans, and to follow my own views on questions ethical 
in procuring the extensive practice to which I have a right to consider 
myself entitled. I was anxious, however, not to violate the rules of a 
society to which I might still bo held to belong. 
This is ihc letter addressed to the Secretary of the American Medical 
Association, on the second day of the meeting at Baltimore, within a 
few hours after the remarks cited above had been uttered on the plat- 
form. It is the best proof that even the most fastidious stickler for form 
could not accuse me of the violation of a code against which I had so 
earnestly protested and to which T had so decidedly renounced allegiance: 
Rennert House, 
Baltimore, May 3, 1806. 
Wm. 13. Atkinson, M. D., 
Secretary American Medical Association: 
Dear Sib—Will you be kind enough to inform the proper officer or 
officers of the American Medical Association, that I have resolved, in 
order to avoid continual fruitless discussion, to resign my membership. 
The manner in which my report last year, as well as my remarks 
generally, have been received, are a proof to me that this course on my 
part is due at the same time to the harmony of the Association and to my 
own dignity. 
I remain, sir, your very obedient servant, 
JITLTITS IIOMBERGElt. 
EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL ETHICS. 
(TRANSACTIONS OF 1856.) REMARKS ON THE 
MERITS OF TIIE REPORT. 
lu regard to the second subject referred to the Committee, viz.: the 
resignation of Dr. Homberger, the undersigned regrets to say that from 
the record of last .year's proceedings, to which the secretary refers, he can 
gain little that is exact. On page forty-four is the following :— 
“ A communication from Dr. Julius Homberger, of New York, express- 
ing his desire to resign from the Association, was presented by the 
Permanent Secretary, who stated that it had been received by him on the 18 
evening of the last day of the session of the Association last year at Balti- 
more, after the final adjournment. After discussion, it was finally referred 
to the Committee on Medical Ethics.” 
The only inferences one can draw from this record are, viz.: that Dr. 
Homberger resigned his membership of the Association two years ago, 
which, for some reason unknown, was not accepted. Second, Dr. 
Homberger’s communication was referred to the Committee on Medical 
Ethics. 
As the undersigned has never seen that communication, he feels doubt- 
ful as to its precise terms. Nevertheless, as this Association has never 
claimed the right to hold any member bound always in his allegiance, and 
as there is nothing in our rules to prevent a man, for reasons best known 
to himself, from retiring from our body, the undersigned feels disposed to 
recommend the acceptance of Dr. Homberger’s resignation as the easiest 
and most profitable way of deciding the question. 
What other course can be pursued so wise as this, viz".: to let Dr. 
Homberger retire quietly with, perhaps, a note from the Association, if 
thought best, that the course pursued by any member of the Association 
contrary to Section 3, Article 1, of that part of our code referring to “ the 
duties of physicians to each other and to the profession at large,” is 
entirely inconsistent with honorable membership. 
This remark naturally brings up the much vexed topic of the propriety 
of advertising at all. And as the undersigned had the honor to state 
definitely his views in a previous report upon that special subject, ho 
forbears to enlarge at present any further than to say that he proposes a 
resolution herewith appended, embodying his precise views in reference 
to Dr. Homberger’s case. 
Resolved, That the resignation of Dr. Julius Homberger, of New York, 
be accepted, and that all further consideration of him or of his peculiar 
methods of procuring practice be indefinitely postponed. 
Respectfully submitted, 
HENRY I. BOWDITCH, 
Apkil 30, 1868. 
For the Committee on Medical Ethics. 
The letter of resignation, it will be seen, though sent and delivered on 
the second day of the meeting, vras not received in time to be read. If 
this be true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it simply shows that the 
arrangements for the dispatch of business were imperfect; and it would 
be unjust to hold me accountable for the carelessness of the Secretary of 
the American Medical Association. 
The report states that the American Medical Association never claimed 
the right to hold “any member always bound in his allegiance.” The double 
announcement of my resignation, was, therefore, sufficient to cancel my 
membership, and the reference of the subject to the Committee on Medical 
Ethics was a mistake of the presiding officer, for which to hold me 
accountable, would be preposterous. 
The Chairman of the Committee on Ethics having been unable ‘ ‘ to 
gain anything that is exact” from the proceedings of 1867, and unac- 
quainted with the tenor of my letter of resiguation, concluded that it was 
proper to grant my withdrawal, permitted himself, however, to indulge 
in a fling at what he pleases to term “my peculiar method of acquiring 
practice.” 
In 1862, this gentleman, Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, presented to Congress 
a memorial on the reforms necessary in the ambulance system of the United States Army. Will he be kind enough to imagine that a fellow- 
phj’sician, unacquainted with his character, had then hinted that this 
memorial was an advertising dodge, “a peculiar method of acquiring 
practice?” Such a proceeding would have been unjust and unfair, but not 
more so than Dr. Bowditch’s insinuation that selfish and mercenary 
motives were at the bottom of my agitation of the subject of advertising. 
From these statements it may be easily seen that Dr. S. D. Gross, the 
President, Dr. Henry I. Bowditch and W. Ik Atkinson, the Secretary, are 
indirectly accountable for nearly all the mistakes and errors into which 
the members of the association have been led when my case was judged. 
I hold that it is a sacred duty which they owe me to use every effort to 
induce the Association to retract every word that has been said against 
me during the debate on my resignation, and to make to me the amende 
\onornble which I claim as a right. 
DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON MOTION TO EXPEL REMARKS AND 
EXPLANATIONS. 
Tl»is import of the debate on the subjeet of my resignation is copied 
from the N. Y. Medical Mirror, the minutes of the meeting in the Tran, 
suctions being less complete. I have been informed from various sources 
that it is substantially correct: 
Dr. John L. Atleo moved the reconsideration of the vote which referred 
the following resolution to the Committee on Medical Ethics. 
“Unsolved, That the resignation of Dr. Julius Ilomberger, formerly of 
New York, be accepted, and that all further consideration of him, and of 
his peculiar methods of procuring practice, be indefinitely postponed.” 
Dr. Sayre moved that the name in question be stricken from the roll of 
this association. In support of his view he referred to Dr. Homberger’s 
peculiar views, as setfoitu in a minority report to the association, meeting 
at Boston, Mass.; in this report, he substantially advocated the privilege 
on the part of specialists to advertise both in the public prints and 
through other sources. 
Ho also read a letter from Dr. Mitchell, of New Orleans, which corrobo- 
rated the s atemeut that Dr. Ilomberger was an extensive advertiser in 
the newspapers. 
Dr. E. Lloyd Howard, of Maryland, objected. Dr. Homberger’s name 
ought not to be stricken from the roll on the accusation of a single indi- 
vidual, unsupported by other authority. He maintained that his case 
had been imperfectly investigated, and therelore moved that the following 
be substituted : 
Resolved, That the matter be referred to the Committee on Medical 
Ethics. 
Dr. R. D. Arnold, of Georgia, objected, to any such reference. The 
issue must be squarely met. The proof that Dr. ilomberger had violated 
the Code of Ethics was abundant, not to sav overwhelming. Some 
definite action should be taken by the Association in vindication of its 
dignity, and that speedily. 
Dr.'ll, 11. Noel, of Maryland, said that the Association should first 
purge itself of members who were guilty of advertising directly or iudi- 
reedy, and referred to individual instances in the public prints. He also read the indorsement of a dentifrice, by a distinguished professor and 
permanent member. 
Dr. Grafton Tyler, of the District of Columbia, excepted to the last 
instance, as a breach of medical ethics. It was one of those questions 
about which men might honestly differ. According to his interpretation 
of the code, it was hardly to be regarded as a violation. 
Dr. B. J. Raphael, of Yew York, thought that undue importance was 
being given to the matter, and that no doubt Dr. Homberger would be 
well pleased with the agitation. Up to the time, however, when he offered 
his resignation, he had never transgressed the established usages of the profes- 
sion. Had the resignation then been accepted, much trouble might have 
been avoided. He, therefore, moved his expulsion. 
Dr. Davis reviewed Dr. II.’s relations to the society, and said the 'real 
question was: Shall a member who detied its rules be permitted to resign ! 
This was last year referred to the Committee on Ethics, who reported the 
resolution. He thought the simplest plan to get rid of him and his hum- 
bugs was to accept his resignation. 
Dr. Palmer, of Michigan, took the ground that no one could by his 
own act cease to be a member, and was of the opinion that should 
be expelled. 
Dr. Howard wished to be understood as being no advocate for the 
alleged transgressor, but as desirous of entering his protest against hasty 
legislation. 
After some further debate, chiefly regarding the parliamentary disposal 
of the matter, Dr. Homberger was ordered, by a decided vote, to be 
expelled. 
These are the arguments of the leaders in the debate which resulted in 
my expulsion; thus a scientific body “vindicates its dignity.” Ignorance 
of the facts of the case and logical incongruities are displayed in almost 
every sentence. 
Dr. Sayre tries to make my Report of 18G5 a point of accusation, though 
the holding of any views, how' heretical soever, form a recognized and 
indisputable parliamentary privilege of the members of any deliberative 
body. Dr. Raphael, after admitting that up to the time of my resignation 
I had never transgressed any established usuag and regretting that my 
resignation was not accepted in time, moves that “therefore” I ought to 
be expelled. By what singular process of ratiocination this wonderful 
‘therefore’ may be justified I am at a loss to know. Dr. Davis wrongly 
assumes the question at issue to be whether a member defying the rules 
shall be permitted to resign ? He wants, however, the Association to 
“get rid” of me by allowing my resignation. If he had been informed 
of the facts, he would have known that I ‘ ‘ got rid ” of the Association in 
1866. 
An unfavorable light is thrown on the proceedings of the Association 
by the fact that the voices of those who pleaded for fair dealing and calm 
judgment were not convincing and powerful enough to carry the day. 
Against prejudice, however, and defective logic, “even Gods would fight 
in vain;” and thus my consolation must be the firm belief, that in the 
end at least, that truth is stronger than error. 
Whatever, therefore, may be the final decision of the American Medical 
Association, I know that I need not be afraid of the verdict of those whose 
respect is more than a compensation for the injustice of the multitude! CODE OF1 ETHICS-Avt. I, Hoc*. 3. 
11 It is derogatory to the dignity of the profession to resort to public advertise- 
ments, or public cards, or hand-bills, inviting the attention of individuals affected 
with particular diseases ; publicly offeriny advice and medicine to the poor gratis, 
or promising radical cures; or to publish cures and operations in the daily 
prints or suffer such publications to be made ; to allow laymen to be present at 
operations; to boast of cures and remedies, to adduce certificates of skill and 
success, or to perform any similar acts. These are the ordinary p nctices of 
empirics and are hiyhly reprehensible in a regular physician. ” 
(From the X. O. Times, Jan. '24. 1867.) 
l TN I Y KKSI TV KYK AND IlAll OblNIC. 
The Faculty of the Medical D partineut of the University have estab- 
lished an Eye and Ear Clinic in the East-wing Building, corner of Com- 
mon and Baronne streets and placed it under the management of * * 
M. D. Entrance to Clinic on Baronue street. Patieuts prescribed for 
and operated upon without charge, every Wednesday and Saturday, from 
2 to 3 o’clock. 
(Translated from the. Ejxnjue of October 18, 1868.) 
Cures are the best recommendation of the practitioner, and t he number 
of those of Dr. * * is infinite. He is an oculist of the most elevated 
order; the admirable results he obtained are due to profound science, 
based on great experience. Many voices are loud to render him this hom- 
age; the voices of those to whom he gave sight, after they had thought it was 
lost forever. He is at the same time a saver and a charitable, generous 
man; no poor man ever appealed to him in vain. We fulfil an agreeable 
duty in recommending to him those who suffer. They cannot apply to 
any one more competent. He also has ofien said: tint lux, and there was 
light. 
Iu the daily papers those interested may look for advertisements and 
cards, which might be formed by an enthusiast into a collection of histor- 
ical interest. I should be happy to contribute to such an enterprise a 
unique specimen of an advertisement iu my possession. 
It is a tin sign, in a rough wooden frame, and was carried from 1859 to 
1866, on the breast of a half-blind colored citizen. It reads thus : 
rv <> rr r o . 
This is the man that lost his sight in this city in 1849; was 
operated upon by Dr. * * in .1858, and restored to partial 
sight. Please patronize him. Persons are requested not to pass 
any counterfeit bills on this man. Boys caught stealing will be 
severely punished. All citizens knew him when he peddled 
with a box to his back. 
* John Cotillion. 
It is only just to sty that John Cotillion, at the request of Dr. 
had the name rubbed out in ]868.