' -G3 /k,J, ORT 0t 6»£3w< i EVIDENCE IN THE CASE JOHN STEPHEIV BARTLETT, M. D. VERS US THE MASS. MEDICAL SOCIETY, AS GIVEN BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE, SESSION OF 1839/ PRINTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, BT ORDER OF THE HOUSE. IS o t$ ton: DUTTON AND WENTWORTH, STATE PRINTERS. 1839 . <*,; A%i?<-.■■ V J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. crommontocaitij of JHnssacijusctto House of Representatives, March 7, 1839. Ordered, That Messrs. Stone, of Beverly, Hinckley, of Barnstable, Greene, of Nexo Bedford, Cushman, of Bernardston, Smith, of North Bridgeioater, Pratt, of Middleborough, Rix, of Marblchcad, constitute a Committee on the Memorial of John Stephen Bartlett, M. D. L. S. CUSHING, Clerk. (Eomwontoealt!) of iHaaaacljttGetts, House op Representatives, April 10, 1839. Ordered, That the report on the petition of John Stephen Bartlett, be printed under the direction of the Chairman of the Committee, and that the subject of the said petition be referred to the next General Court. L. S. CUSHING, Clerk. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 3 REPORT. The Committee to whom was referred the Memorial of John Stephen Bartlett, M. D., prajing that the charter of the Massachusetts Medical Societj "maj be declared void, and that he maj obtain such redress of his grievan- ces" as the Legislature " alone can afford," ask leave to state, that thej have, with unwearied patience, and with much exposure of health bj protracted night sessions, at- tended to the investigation of the subject. Ten meetings were held. The first and second were preliminary. The third was devoted to Dr. Bartlett's opening. The i fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh were occupied in hearing testimony introduced bj him. The eighth was a meet- ing for consultation merelj. And the ninth and tenth ! were improved bj the respondents. The subject was ithus closed, but the parties having stated, that thej had other testimonj which time did not suffice them to intro- duce, nor the Committee to hear, the chairman was di- rected by the unanimous voice of the Committee, to re- v port the evidence in the case, as presented, rather than express an official opinion on its merits. The testimony is written out from copious notes.* I * Before placing the manuscript of this report in the hands of the printers, the testimony of the principal witnesses was submitted to them for exami- nation, viz.: Drs. Bartlett, Walker, Lewis, Jackson, Reynolds, Pierson, ! Bri^s, and Mr. Button. They severally expressed their approbation of its | correctness. Time and circumstances prevented its submittal to the other I witnesses. I 4 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. i March 12, 1839. Committee met in Lobby No. 11, for primary consul- tation. Directed the chairman to report an order of no- tice for the appearance of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 20th inst., to show cause why the prayer of John Stephen Bartlett, M. D., should not be granted. Adjourned. 1 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 5 Wednesday, March 20, 1839. » The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present. The following gentlemen appeared as a committee in behalf of the Massachusetts Medical Society, viz: Drs. James Jackson, George C. Shaltuck, Rufus Wyman, John Homans, S. D. Townsend. Peleg Sprague, Esq. appeared as council for the Mas- sachusetts Medical Society, and entered the following protest against further proceedings in the case : To the Honorable the General Court of the Common- wealth of Massachusetts : Respectfully represent the Massachusetts Medical So- ciety, that they were incorporated by an act of the General Court, passed in the year 1781, and were duly organized, and have ever since continued a body corpo- rate under said act: that on Thursday, the fourteenth day of March, instant, their president was served with a copy of the petition of John Stephen Bartlett, and of the order of the General Court thereon, that they should ap- pear on this twentieth day of March, to show cause why their charter should not be declared void. And now the said Massachusetts Medical Society, with entire and pro- found respect for the General Court, suggest to your honorable body, that no power is reserved in and by said act of incorporation to annul, alter, or in any manner to affect the same ; and said society hereby most respectfully 6 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. object and protest, that the honorable the General Court have no power to annul, or alter, or in any manner im- pair the charter of said society, and against the exercise or attempted exercise of any such power. And said society interpose this objection and protest from a solemn sense of duty to their founders and to posterity, lest any acquiescence now should be drawn into precedent hereaf- ter, and not from any want of entire confidence in the present General Court, or any reluctance to meet the said petition or application of said Bartlett. And if the honorable the General Court shall overrule this objection and protest, and, notwithstanding the same, require the said society to answer to said petition or application of said Bartlett, they will hold themselves in readiness to do so at the earliest practicable time, not, however, waiv- ing, nor in any manner impairing, this objection and protest. Boston, March 20, 1839. JAMES JACKSON, GEO. C. SHATTUCK, RUFUS WYMAN, JOHN HOMANS, S. D. TOWNSEND, A. L. PEIRSON, Committee. The Society did not, Mr. S. remarked, by entering this protest, wish to be understood as desiring to evade or elude investigation, if the Committee thought proper to pursue it. They were ready and willing to go into a thorough examination of the affair. They put in this protest chiefly to maintain a reserved right, to be availed of in future, if found necessary. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 7 Mr. Sprague suggested that the order of notice bad been unusually short, the ordinary time for notifying cor- porations being not less than thirty days—that he conse- quently had found no time to prepare for the investigation. He thought Friday as early a day as he could proceed. The supreme court being now in session, his attendance there was unavoidable. If the Committee held another meeting at an earlier day, the Medical Society would be compelled to seek other council—and whether, at this moment, they could obtain it, was doubtful. Dr. Bartlett said he was anxious to proceed without delay. He had his documentary evidence with him, and was prepared to prove every charge he had made in his memorial. It was important to him that no interruption should take place. The session of the Legislature was drawing to a close. If laid over, he might never obtain a hearing. The next Legislature might not be sufficiently honest to grant him one. He was here without council, a friendless, unaided man. He had not means to protract the issue. He had suffered in his feelings and interests, and wished the Committee to afford him an opportunity to obtain justice. He did not ask this as a boon; be demanded it as a right—not for himself merely, but for the public. He wished expedition in the case, as some of the documents necessary could not be kept by him long. They must be in France in three months. Mr. Sprague said he knew nothing of Dr. Bartlett's grievances; nor were they the question now under con- sideration. The question was concerning the charter of the Massachusetts Medical Society. The society certain- ly had a grievance. The annulment of its charter was demanded. He should confine himself to that. Against the demand to annul, the protest was entered. At this 8 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASS. time he should go no further. He should not medd'e with Dr. Bartlett's grievances, unless compelled to. If compelled, he should do so at some future time. The Massachusetts Medical Societj did not wish to avoid in- vestigation. He asked only time to fulfil other duties in court. If this was not granted, he could not appear for < the society. Dr. Bartlett acceded to the wish of Mr. Sprague, and desired the Committee to ask leave to sit while the Leg- islature was in dailj session. In private conference, on motion of Mr. Hinckley, ' voted, that the protest of the Massachusetts Medical So- ciety is not a valid objection to a hearing of the case. Adjourned to meet Friday, at 3 o'clock, P. M. I March 22, 1839. Committee met according to adjournment. All mem- bers present. Dr. Bartlett opened his case. He said he proposed to offer evidence to show : 1. That Harvard College has a right to confer certain privileges ; that among these, is the right of consultation, without referring to anj bodj of men ; that this right is inalienable, whatever maj be the subsequent conduct of the individual upon whom it was conferred. 2. He should prove that Harvard College, as a cor- porate bodj, possesses certain rights which the Massa- chusetts Medical Societj contravenes, and that the Legis- lature is not authorized to confer the power it has upon the Massachusetts Medical Societj. 3. Even admitting that the charters of Harvard College J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 9 and the Massachusetts Medical Societj were or are com- patible, he should prove that the Medical Societj had not fulfilled the purposes for which it was instituted, that its officers have failed to discharge their dutv, and that the societj has not complied with the terms of its charter. 4. He should show that the effects of the Massachu- setts Medical Societj had been injurious to societj ; that it has imposed a joke grievous to be borne, and that joung phjsicians have suffered from its influence. 5. He should show that the Medical Societj in its in- fluence tended to promote quackery. 6. He should show that the Massachusetts Medical So^ cietj prohibits consultation with anj who do not become members of that bodj. 7. He should show, that in recommending a certain in- dividual to public notice and patronage, in the Boston Pilot, he did it as an editor and not as a physician ; and that the individual was a regular practitioner as an oc- ulist. 8. He should show, from a great variety of circum- stances, that his memorial to the Legislature is based in a sincere desire to promote the welfare of societj. He was not opposed to a Medical Societj, but was opposed to the societj. He was not actuated by wrong feeling in this matter. He did not view it merelj as a personal af- fair, but as one in which the public interest and welfare was involved. 9. He should show that he was selected as an object of judicial operation by the societj, for recommending as an editor a certain individual whom he believed a public benefactor ; that when asked to retract his statements, he declined, and that when told by some member of the Medical Society, that if he persisted, lie would be ex- 2 10 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. pelled; he declared he did not care—be should speak what he believed to be the truth, let what might be the result. He should further show, that he impeached Dr. Waterhousc, before he (Bartlett) was expelled from the societv, for recommending a notorious quack ; but that he was not dealt with according to the letter of the 8th by- < law. Dr. Bartlett requested the Committee to obtain leave to send for persons and papers, and also to sit during the regular sessions of the House. The Committee decided that the future must determine their course in regard to that. Mr. Dexter, for the Committee of the Massachusetts Medical Society, read a paper asking the Committee to require of Dr. Bartlett specific charges in writing. The Committee decided that Dr. Bartlett might go on to ad- » duce evidence of the allegations in his memorial ; but that if he introduced any new charges, they must be specifi- cally stated in writing. Adjourned to Saturday, A. M., 8 o'clock. March 23, 1839. Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Benj. F. Hallett, Esq. appeared as council for Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Bartlett was called up and sworn on the Holy Evangely. Ex- amined by Mr. Hallett. i Hallett. Are you a doctor of medicine 1 Ans. I am. I received my degree of Harvard College. Received my diploma Jan. 23, 1831. Hallett. Was you regularly admitted a member of the Massachu- setts Medical Society? Ans. I was. I was admitted in ------, 1833, and expelled in May, 1836. Hallett. What were the privileges which that society conferred on you J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. II Ans. Aid and assistance in consultation. Since my expulsion I have been refused this. Hallett. What would now be the effect in a critical case under your care? Ans. A member of the Mass. Medical Society could not take charge of it unless I was discharged. If he did, he would be exposed > to censure, and, in repeated cases, would be expelled. This is my own experience. I have been refused consultation in one case, be- cause the by-laws of the Mass. Medical Society prohibit it. Indul- gence could be obtained of the society by a member, to consult with one not belonging to it, if he made the request, by representing the case as one involving life. The Medical Society has upheld a member in consulting with an irregular practitioner, because the person proposed to join it. Dr. Peirson, of Salem, so consulted with a physician in Ipswich, who was not a member of the Mass. Medical Society. He was excused. Dr. Peirson holds a high rank as a professional man. This consultation was in the early part of 1836. Hallett. Dr. Bartlett, please state to the Committee the first move- ment of the Mass. Medical Society for your expulsion, and the causes which led to it. Dr. Bartlett. The first steps taken for my expulsion were in con- sequence of an article published over my initials, "J. S. B." in a newspaper printed in this city, called the " Boston Pilot," of which I was joint editor. It related to a person by the name of Williams, a professed oculist. The article is as follows:— " Mr. John Williams, the Oculist. We abhor quackery in all its forms—in medicine, religion, politics, or any thing else; and we never will be backward in exposing it wherever it may be found. As we define the word, it signifies ignorant imposture : and, as such, it and its professors should be held up to the contempt and indignation of an injured and insulted community. But as our business is chiefly to speak of that sort which falls under our more especial notice, viz. medical quackery, we shall confine our exordium to a few remarks upon this. In the first place, it is by no means essential that a quack should be distinguished by the absence of a diploma, for we must say, in sorrow and shame, that some of the most flagrant instances of sheer quackery we ever witnessed, (and our opportunities of observation, since we received the degree of M. D. at the age of 18 years, have not 12 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. been very limited,) have occurred among duly authorized members of our profession. It is of no use to disguise facts—they are stubborn things; and although, in penning this article, we foresee the anathe- matization to which its publication will subject us for our candor, yet, as we are under no remarkable obligations to the professional elite of the city, with a few honorable exceptions, and most certainly under none whatever to the proteges of said elite, we shall speak our mind 1 very plainly. We, in common with every body in the city who can read, had seen a great deal in the daily journals about the gentleman whose name heads these remarks; and we observed a disposition in several papers to vilify him, which, as far as we could judge from the tenor of the paragraphs in which it was manifested, emanated from a portion of the source above referred to. Well, we were determined to see for our- self, and accordingly called on Mr. Williams, and half an hour's con- versation fully convinced us that there was nothing like quackery about him, so far as regards his knowledge of his profession, or his personal skill. As to his manner of announcing his residence in the city, it certainly is unusual in this country; but we do not know how any > other method could have the desired effect of extending the informa- tion so effectually, in so short a period of time. Mr. Williams, we repeat, is no quack. He confines his attention exclusively to those diseases of the eyes and ears which are curable without surgical aid; and the number of these is much greater than one would suppose. To the truth of this last remark, the result of our own practice has often borne ample testimony. Whenever a surgical operation is requisite, Mr. W. immediately informs the patient of the fact, and recommends application to a surgeon. But more than this, we have examined several of his patients, and some of them too who had received any thing but benefit from hands % heretofore thought almost omnipotent in diseases of a like character. Now the evidence of our senses amounts to this simple fact—we have seen people who were blind, or nearly so, and who had tried in vain every means of relief to be obtained here without success, restored to sight in an incredibly short space of time, without the aid of surgery. Several cases of pterygium and albugo were remarkable on this account. Mr. W. is the author of a v&luable work in the French language, on the structure and diseases of the eye, which, had space permitted, we had intended to review. The sum of our remarks is this, that Mr. W. has acquired a degree J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 13 of perfection in the management of the distressing class of diseases, to which he confines his attention, which has never to our knowledge been equalled, at least if the official reports of the comparative number cured or relieved in the principal eye infirmaries in this country or in Europe are to be relied on. That the principles upon which he founds his treatment, are identically the same with those maintained by the r most distinguished professors, and that the only difference in the re- sults of the separate methods of treatment is, that he effects in a few days, objects which usually require months and perhaps years for their fulfilment. He indeed keeps his remedial agents a secret, and he would be a great fool if he did not, until he had acquired an independent compe- tency for himself and his family, as a reward for his labor. The world is not generally so grateful as to give a man more cop- pers than kicks for what good he may do it. After it has starved its benefactors, it is very ready to console their widows and orphans by piling some dozen tons of granite over their last home; the cost of which if it had been given them in their lifetime, would have smoothed * the path to that grave, where they would lie quite as easy without a monument to remind others of the spot. We therefore think, that Mr. Williams acts in this, the part of a prudent man, particularly as his services are gratuitous to the poor under all circumstances. We sup- pose his remedies will be made known to the world sometime or other, and conclude by saying, that if we ourself were affected with disease of the character referred to, we would rather (M. D. as we are,) have our sight restored by Mr. Williams xoithout a diploma, than after getting our eyes put out, to be informed, that the gentleman to whom we were indebted for this friendly service, had a waggon load of diplomas from all the universities and societies on the face of the earth, and could af- fix the letters of a dozen alphabets to the end of his name. (Signed.) J. S. B." " We can only add to the remarks in the above article, that every day's observation since it was written, has confirmed the opinion there- in expressed, as regards the success of this gentleman to whom it re- fers, and the fact, that out of more than one hundred and forty cases which we have rigidly scrutinized, that one hundred and thirty-eight are relieved, and more than seventy cured; of which last, nine were at the time of application to Mr. W. totally blind; and the major por- tion of the whole number had been under the most skilful treatment to be obtained in New England, without receiving benefit. In no sin- 14 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. gle case have we heard an expression of dissatisfaction at his treatment, but on the contrary, the most enthusiastic expressions of gratitude. We had written a larger notice, but have no space to say more. (Signed.) J. S. B." Hallett. Did you write that article as a Fellow of the Mass. Medical Society, or as an editor 1 < Ans. As an editor. Hallett. Are the facts therein stated true? Ans. They are. I could not as an honest man refuse to make these facts known. Hallett. Could you conscientiously retract this statement at any subsequent time ? Ans. I could not. Hallett. Have you evidence of Dr. Williams' standing and medical character 1 Ans. Yes. I have his diploma and various papers received by him in Paris and elsewhere. These documents satisfied me of his regular standing as an oculist, before writing the article in the Pilot concern- • ing him. Hallett. What took place after the publication of the article con- cerning Dr. Williams? Ans. One or two days after, Drs. J. B. Flint and Winslow Lewis, Fellows of the Mass. Medical Society, cautioned me of my danger. A few days subsequent to this, I was notified to meet the Boston Medical Association, of which I was a member. This is a voluntary associa- tion, to regulate the intercourse and fees of its members. It is not a corporate body. Its members belong to the Mass. Medical Society. None but members are allowed to attend its meetings. The notice I received was of ordinary character, though I found its object was spe- cial. I was impeached before this body by Dr. Storer, and subsequent- ly expelled. The charges preferred against me were, consulting with irregular practitioners, and aiding and abetting quacks. These charg- es referred to my intercourse with Dr. Patrick Kearney and Dr. Wil- liams. The charges were referred to a committee. After my expulsion from the Boston Medical Association, I was summoned by notice, to appear before the counsellors of the Mass. Medical Society, to answer to charges of having violated the eighth article of its by-laws, by aiding and abetting quacks or irregular prac- titioners. I appeared, and justified the course I had taken as well as 1 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 15 could. I had abundance of time allowed me for my defence. There is no rule of the society by which I could compel a Fellow to give his testimony. I think the tendency of the society's operations unpropi- tious. In my opinion, its influence would have ruined any young man who should have aided me at my trial. The counsellors decided to submit the case to the society at large, which was done in May, 1836. A report of my trial is contained in the Boston Medical Journal, of June 8, 1836. This report I consider full and impartial. Question by Mr. Greene. Do you rely upon the language attributed to Dr. Peirson in that report as proof of the charge contained in the tenth allegation of your memorial? Dr. Bartlett. I do. I consider the words used by Dr. Peirson as there reported, to contain substantially the meaning which I have at- tributed to them. The effects and influence of my expulsion have been highly injurious to my character and prospects. Medical gentlemen have refused to consult with me, and I have lost prospective practice. My degree from Harvard College has been of no service to me since my expulsion. I have now no right which any loafer may not enjoy. My diploma is of no use to me here. The influence of the Medical Society is to crush a man down, and render him worse than dead. Since my expulsion, I have received attentions from members of the Mass. Medical Society as a gentleman, but not as a professional man. I find no difference of deportment in the former case; in the latter, I do. I have had to struggle to sustain myself. I have had no wealthy friends upon whom I could lean. I received nothing as a compensation for my services as an editor of the Pilot. I rely upon my professional services for support. I find it necessary to follow other pursuits for a livelihood. No complaint of mal-practice was ever preferred against me; but I have received many second-hand compliments for professional skill. I know of none who ever impeached my medical practice. There is a by-law of the Mass. Medical Society which makes it un- lawful for a member to offer to cure disease by the use of a secret medicine. He is bound to make known all his discoveries in medical science for the general good. There is no division of fees among the members of the society. Each receives and enjoys his own. The fee-bill is local in its laws and operations. A youn' gentleman. I named this circumstance to the board, before we pro- ceeded to a choice. The result showed that they disagreed with those members of the faculty who alone were interested in the matter. Very sincerely, yours, GEO. BOND. Kilby Street, 30th March. Geo. Hayward, M. D. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 29 Dr. Lewis continued his testimony. Have heard that Mr. Elliot rose in the board of trustees, and expressed a wish that he, (Dr. Lewis,) might be removed because he put forth charges which he would not or could not substantiate, There is not a comparison between Dr. Peirson's consultation with Dr. Strong, and Dr. Bartlett's intercourse with Williams. Dr. Strong was a graduate of the Berkshire Medical Institution. There are gra- dations in the violation of the by-laws, and also of censure for their in- fraction, viz. : Suspension of the privilege of voting for one year, reprimand, and in aggravated cases, expulsion. Dr. Peirson expressed his willingness to submit to the society's discipline, for having violated its by-law by consulting with Dr. Strong. Dr. Doane was a surgeon in the United States Navy. Expulsion is a common transaction in other medical societies. Dr. Bartlett's expulsion was just, according to the by-laws. Dr. Bugard sworn and examined by Mr. Hallett. I am a graduate from Harvard Medical College, and a member of the Mass. Medical Society. I joined it to obtain consultation with its members, which I could not enjoy without. I think a young man would meet with in- convenience in his practice, if not a member. The counsel for the memorialist said he should close his evidence here for the present. He had now introduced the testimony he intend- ed to offer, so far as the case had proceeded. He should reserve the right, however, to offer additional testimony, in case it should be judged necessary to rebut the evidence offered by the respondents. Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Boston, was sworn and examined on the part of the respondents. I have for several years been a trustee of the Mass. General Hospital. I deny, on behalf of the trustees and myself, the imputation of some of the testimony I have heard this evening. I No undue influence has been exerted on the trustees of the hospital, by members of the medical profession, directly, or indirectly, during the four years I have been connected with that institution. Dr. Doane was an assistant surgeon in the Mediterranean under Com. Decatur, in the war of 1812, and in the same ship with myself. On my nomina- tion, he was elected to the office of consulting surgeon in the Hos- pital. I have known Dr. D. to perform many important operations. Dr. Peirson's election was not influenced by the part he took in Dr. Bartlett's trial. Physicians are appointed to the offices of consulting physicians and surgeons on the ground of their general reputation, Adjourned. 30 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. April 4, 1S39. Dr. Briggs, of Marblehead, sworn and examined by Mr. Dexter. I am a physician of Marblehead, and am well acquainted with Dr. Bartlett. He commenced business in Marblehead—practised about three years, and then removed to Boston. One case only has occurred in which I have declined to practise with Dr. B. I declined not solely nor principally because he was expelled from the Mass. Medical Soci- ety, but for other reasons. I can assign those reasons if required. Dexter. We are not particular about the reasons at present. If the counsel for Dr. Bartlett wishes to know them, he is at liberty to ask. Do you remember being called to a boy badly injured by a horse, mentioned by Mr. Orne ? Ans. I do. It was a case of fracture of the skull, and was one in which I thought it highly important to obtain the advice of an experi- enced surgeon. A messenger was accordingly despatched, in great haste, for Dr. Peirson, of Salem, there being, in my opinion, less risk to my patient in postponing the operation, if found necessary, till Dr. P's arrival, than in performing it without competent assistance. I did not call in Dr. Bartlett for reasons before alluded to; indeed I did not know he was in town, and had quite forgotten that he had a set of trepanning instruments, as I had not seen them for a long time. When Dr. B. commenced practice, I favored him and associated with him. This I continued to do so long as I could conscientiously. Cross-examined by Mr. Hallett. I have signed the by-laws of the Mass. Medical Society, and consider them binding. I would consult with any practitioner if life was in danger. Hallett. Is it safe, in cases of fracture of the skull, to postpone an operation any considerable period of time 1 Ans. In cases of the nature of the boy, a delay of an hour or two is seldom productive of any injury, and is sometimes highly expedient t when the vital powers are greatly prostrated, and life nearly extinct, as was the fact in the present instance. The safe rule is to be governed by the circumstances of the case. Hallett. Did you consult with Dr. Bartlett while resident in Mar- blehead ? Ans. I did, previously to his expulsion from the Medical Society. Hallett. How do you regulate consultations in view of the by-laws? Ans. I consult on my own responsibility. The society is compe- tent to determine whether I violate its laws. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 31 Dexter. Do you think Dr. Bartlett suffered in his practice, in Mar- blehead, in consequence of his expulsion from the Medical Society'? Ans. The expulsion of Dr. Bartlett from the Mass. Medical Society has not, in my opinion, had much influence on his business in Mar- blehead. Before he left that town for Boston, his practice was not very lucrative. He assured me, that his expenditures for the last three years had exceeded his receipts by not less than fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars. He is certainly doing a better business than that at present. The inference is therefore perfectly fair, that his expulsion has been beneficial rather than injurious to his pecuniary interests, although I cannot specify any instance in confirmation of this opinion. Hallett. Would you assist Dr. Bartlett in a case where life was involved, if requested? Ans. Yes. To save the life of a fellow creature, I would aid an irregular practitioner, or even a quack. I should not, by so doing, violate the spirit of our by-laws; nor do I believe the society would view it as a violation. Dexter. In a case like that of the boy, should you call in less skil- ful assistance than Dr. Peirson, if such could be procured ? Ans, I should not. Bartlett. Do you recognise this case of instruments as the one I once presented for your inspection in Marblehead? Ans. I do not identify them, but presume they are the same I had formerly seen. Hallett. Does the case contain the instruments usually employed in trepanning? Ans. I believe it does. Mrs. Plummer was offered to be sworn, by the respondents. Mr. Hallett objected to her examination. Dexter. We wish to show, that Dr. Bartlett's intercourse with Williams was, in the language of the by-law, an aggravated case. To prove this, we intend to show that Williams was a rapacious, merce- nary quack; and to establish this, we produce witnesses, of whom the person on the stand is one. Ruled to admit the testimony. Mrs. Abigail Plummer sworn and examined by Dexter. I am stay- ing at present in Boston. I came to this city from Salem. I have no property, and am totally blind. I have been blind three years. I put myself under the care of Dr. Williams in hope of obtaining my sight. I was induced to go to him from the accounts read to me in the 32 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. "Morning Post" and "Boston Pilot,"' by a friend. The family with whom I had long lived as a cook, sent me up to Dr. Williams. I had been three years under the care of Dr. Peirson, who charged me noth- ing, and also had the advice of Drs. Reynolds and Jeffries, at the Eye and Ear Infirmary. When I first went to Dr. Williams, he inquired how much money I had, and if the people I lived with were rich or poor? He said he ( supposed my physicians had told me the nerves of my eyes were dead. He said they were not, and that the medicine he gave me would restore my sight. I asked him his charge. He said I must pay 850 down, and 850 more when cured. He said he could cure me. I did not feel able to pay the sum, and asked him if he would not take 8~5 down. He replied, of course I set more by my money than my sight, and he would have nothing to do with me. I told him I had but 843; that I had a child to support, and could lay by but little. He said he would not take less than 650, and I might have a week to make up my mind ; if I did not come in that time, I need not come at all. I went home, and returned the next Saturday with the money, which I gave him. After 1 paid him the money, he gave me some medicine in a bottle, 4 and I signed a paper promising to pay him 850 more, if cured. The paper was read to me, and Peter Grant signed it with me. I then went back to Salem, and had the medicine put into my eyes three times a day. Williams charged me not to let any physician see the medicine. He told me that in six weeks I should be restored to sight. I was under his care and treatment three months. I went up to see him six times. I met Dr. Bartlett at Williams's room on my fourth visit. When I went in, he was engaged, and said he would introduce me to his friend Dr. Bartlett, of Marblehead, who would tell me of the cures he (Williams) had effected. Dr. B. examined my eyes; he said mine was a case he would not like to undertake himself, but if any one could cure me, it was Williams. This gave me courage. There was a woman in the room called Hannah. Dr. B. said a cataract was com- ing off her eyes, and would be off in two or three days. I do not know that Dr. B. had any connexion with Williams. The medicine I used made my eyes smart a short time, and did me neither good nor harm. Williams always assured me my case was going on well. He told me of Lydia Saunders, a pupil in the Blind Asylum, whom Dr. Reynolds had given over, and whom he had helped so that she walked out that morning. At the end of two months, Williams said my eyes were doing well, and he should expect the other 850 sent on to him at J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 33 Providence. He told me the cataracts were growing thinner, though I could not see the light of a candle at any time. He was sometimes cross. Dr. Bartlett said if I had put myself under Williams's care at the time I first lost my sight, it might have been saved. Williams paid me but little attention when I called on him. I did not let any phy- sician know I was going to put myself under Williams's care. Dr. Peirson told me at first, he feared he could not save my sight. At the end of four weeks he pronounced my case incurable. I went to Dr. Reynolds after I had lost the sight of one eye.1 He told me had I come before, he could have done nothing more than Dr. Peirson had done. I remained in the family with whom I had lived one year after I be- came blind. Dr. Peirson aided me in getting into the asylum. Benev- olent friends in Salem procured me a loom—I learnt to weave matts, and can now earn something for my support. Cross-examined by Hallett. I heard about the Medical Society when I first thought of putting myself under Williams's care. I did not pay him any more money. Dr. Bartlett examined Hannah, and said the medicine was taking the cataract off. Examined by Dexter. I was totally blind when I put myself under Williams's care. I have been blind three years last February. My sight began to fail in August. In December I could see but little. After that my sight failed entirely. Mr. George D. Dutlon, of Boston, sworn and examined. I am en- gaged in mercantile business. I have been afflicted with a disease of the eyes since 1828. In 1834 Dr. Williams came to Boston. On his arrival I did not choose to go near him, which some of my friends urged me to do. 1 subsequently heard of several cases which had been under his care, which induced me to go and see him. He said my case was a very simple one, and that he could cure me. His first question was, what was my business. He then asked me whether I had ever failed, and what I was now worth. He also asked me, how many clerks I kept, and many other questions which I thought strange and impertinent. He said he would take me under his care at ten guineas per month, for two months, and that if cured, I must pay him a hundred dollars more. I replied, I had rather pay a larger sum when cured. He said those were his terms, and I could do as I pleased. Thinking them exorbitant I left him. My eyes gradually growing worse, I visited him again in the course of one or two weeks. He asked me, what I thought my eyes were worth, intimating thereby, that I valued my money more than my sight. I had been told of one 5 34 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. or two cases of successful treatment, which induced me to accede to his terms. On my fourth visit he held up a glass and examined my eyes at the distance of about three feet. He also used a glass in the same way on my first visit. I paid him one hundred dollars and he gave me medicine in a vial. After he had received the money, he re- quired me to sign a paper agreeing not to show the medicine to any physician or apothecary, nor to leave it exposed in my house ; and ' further, that I should speak well of him if I was cured, and say noth- ing'against him if I was not. He said there was no manner of doubt that he could cure me. I used the medicine several weeks according to directions without benefit. I told Williams the medicine hurt me, and I thought he had imposed upon me. At first from its dilating the pupil, I could see a little better, and felt encouraged that would benefit me. But. I soon found my mistake. The vessels of the cornea became more inflamed and the application of the medicine was painful. I told Williams that I needed the use of the lancet in the region of the eye. I went to Dr. Jeffries and was bled. He did not know I had been under Wil- liams's care. I afterwards informed Williams of this, and he blamed me for not coming to him to be bled. Cross-examined by Hallett. I had consulted physicians before I went to Williams, but had not exhausted medical resources. Wil- liams said he could cure me, without my laying aside business. I sent for him at one time, but he prescribed nothing. As an inducement to employ him, Williams said, I should follow him to England, if I did not take him now. At his rooms he showed me a young man whom he said he had cured. This, with other cases of which I had heard, gave me great encouragement. One case which had been pronounced a cure, I afterward ascertained was only partial relief. I received no benefit from the treatment of my case by Williams. i Dr. Edward Reynolds, of Boston, sworn and examined. I have given much attention to diseases of the eye. I am connected with the Eye and Ear Infirmary in this city. There are about 600 cases annu- ally. For ten or twelve years I have been in almost daily attendance. I paid much attention to this subject in Europe the most part of one year. I have a distinct recollection of frequently making such remarks as are stated by Mrs. Plummer to have been made in reference to Dr. Peirson's treatment of her case. I frequently had patients who had been under his care, and presume I made the remarks to Mrs. P. Some three or four weeks after Dr. Williams arrived in this J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 35 city, a man from Vermont came to my room. I saw he had a cataract. He asked me if I could do any thing to help or cure him. I told him the only relief he could obtain would be by an opera- tion. He said he did not like to undergo that, and that he had been to see the celebrated oculist to the king of France, who said he could cure him in one month, or perhaps two, without an operation. But, said he, I did not like his ways. He asked me what was my business, and how large my farm was, and how much money I had? He said if I would pay him 100 dollars down, he would doctor me one month; if he did not cure me in that time, he would doctor me another month gratis; but if I was then cured, he should expect me to pay him 100 dollars more. I thought it was a good deal of money to pay, and I have come to ask you whether I had better go to him. I gave the man my advice and he returned home. I have not seen him nor heard from him since. Shortly after this a gentleman brought a patient to my house wholly blind. He had been so 17 years. The internal and external parts of the eye were literally glued together. In consequence of this affliction the person had become dependent, upon the town for support. The gentleman with him asked me if I thought he could be cured. He said he had called on Dr. Williams, who said he could cure him, but must be paid 100 dollars down. This gentleman said a sum of money had been raised to defray his expenses while here. If there was any pros- 'pect of a^ cure being effected, the money would be cheerfully devoted to that object; but if not, it would be preferable to retain it for the benefit of the man. Before I had done conversing with these persons, two others came in, one totally deaf. They said they had been to see Dr. Williams, who assured them he could cure the man of his deafness; but he must t have 50 dollars now, and 50 more at the end of two months. This man was a case which I had seen seven years previously, and he had then been deaf many years. I at that time pronounced him incurable. I had not done with this man when another person came in, a pa- tient of my own, who gave me a simiLar account. He said, "I have been to see Dr. Williams, who told me that before he did any thing for me, I must pay him 100 dollars. I replied, that we yankees thought it was best to pay when the work was done. I told him, however, that I would visit him for thirty days,, and leave one dollar each day on his desk. If, on the expiration of that time, I was better, I would give him 100 dollars, and if he cured me, I would give him 8200 more. 36 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. Upon this he turned me out of his room." The man said he had come to ask me if I thought he had better put himself under Williams's care. I have had many inform me that they had been under Williams's treatment. The only certain remedy for disease of the nasal duct, is mechanical. Williams treated this with the same applications he used in diseases of the eye. The application of the extract of stramonium and belladonna dilates the pupil and increases the field of vision for a time. The effect of this application sometimes continues one, two, or three days, but never permanently. I am not aware that the applica- tion is injurious to the eye; it does neither good nor harm. There is no cure for a complete amaurosis; i. e. where the nerves of the eye are destroyed. The application of moxa cannot cure such a case. Cross-examined by Hallett. The individuals in the cases referred to went home without treatment. I knew they were incurable, and told them so. The knowledge of the nature of diseases of the eye has about arrived at perfection. I think it probable that not much will be added to a knowledge of their treatment. I do not mean to be under- stood that I think / have acquired a knowledge of all that may be known; but I mean tasay, that I think about all in relation to this subject is known that can be known. Williams's application would irritate the organ, and do no good. Empiricism has more charms with many than regular practice. Some men will place implicit con- fidence in quacks, who have not a very high opinion of regular phy- sicians. I account for this from that tendency in poor human nature to love self-deception and the marvellous. The Mass. Medical Society did not interfere officially with the prac- tice of Dr. Williams. It gave itself no concern about him. I can tell by examination when the nerve of the eye is dead. In a fair light we can see into the bottom of the eye as easily as to look into a mirror. Numbers of the patients of the Eye Infirmary left it, and put themselves i under the care of Williams. They paid him their money, obtained no relief, and finally came back. Some of them are there now. Ad- journed. April 6, 1839. Committee met according to adjournment. Mr. Dexter, for the respondents, said he had a mass of evidence proving the rapacity and impositions of Williams, which it was his in- tention to present, had time permitted. Dr. Bartlett had occupied four or five sittings with his testimony, and it now appeared, that the Legisla- ture would rise so soon as to afford the Mass. Medical Society but one J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 37 sitting (if allowed) in addition to the last, to put in rebutting evidence. This obviously placed the society at disadvantage, as in order to meet the various points of Dr. B's charges, he (Dexter,) must greatly con- dense the testimony he proposed to submit. As to another meeting, he trusted the committee would grant it if possible. To leave the in- vestigation at its present stage, would be to place the Medical Society in an unpleasant position. Certain grave charges, affecting its charac- ter, had been preferred, to refute which there was ample testimony, but if this testimony was not received now, the society would rest un- der the odium of these aspersions until the next Legislature. Should another sitting be determined on, he would waive further important evidence concerning Williams, and confine himself to other partic- ulars. Dr. Bartlett concurred with Mr. Dexter in expressing a hope, that the Medical Society might be indulged with another hearing. On motion of Mr. Greene: Voted, That another meeting shall be held on Monday evening next, at which nothing further concerning Dr. Williams and his character shall be introduced. Adjourned. April 8, 1839. Committee met according to adjournment. Dr. James Jackson, of Boston, sworn and examined. I have been in practice of medicine since 1800. In 1SC2 1 was elected a Fellow of the Massachusetts Medical Society. The society had then existed about twenty years. Originally it was designed to be a select society, and its numbers were limited to seventy, embracing the most eminent in the profession. These members living in different parts of the Commonwealth, could not attend the meetings of the society so con- stantly as its object required, consequently that interest necessary to its prosperity flagged. The original act of incorporation being found insufficient in its operations to effect the purposes of medical science, some changes were thought necessary. In 1803 the society petitioned the Legislature for certain alterations in its charter. The act contain- inrr these alterations was prepared by the late Dr. Treadwell and Chief Justice Sewall. It was presented by them to the society and approv- ed. By that act, the privileges of the society from being limited to a few, were extended to all regularly educated physicians in the Com- monwealth. All who were licensed by censors, and all the medical graduates at Harvard College, were entitled to its benefits. Subse- 38 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. quently, it was provided, that all physicians coming from other states and countries might become members of the society by making appli- cation and presenting their credentials, if those were satisfactory. The object of the society was, to enable the public to distinguish the regu- larly educated from such as were not. The terms of membership were such, that all respectable physicians might avail of them if they chose. It was feared at first that physicians would not be fond of joining us, because they would obtain no personal benefit. To obviate this, and as an inducement to join the society, a clause was inserted in the act referred to, exempting physicians from the performance of military duty. In 1804 the by-law was passed prohibiting consultation with those who should hereafter enter the profession without becoming li- centiates of the society, or doctors of medicine of Harvard College. This law was against the interests of its Fellows, but promotive of the public good. The labor of carrying on the business of the society has mostly de- volved on members in this city and vicinity, and this rather from necessity than choice. The labor imposed upon the officers of the society I should consider more than an equivalent for the honor con- ferred by office. A principal object of the society is to add to the stock of medical knowledge, and to diffuse it to the world. It has effected much good in this way. About thirty years ago a paper on diseases of the heart, by Dr. Warren, was published. It explained the subject better than any English writer I had seen. A very valuable paper by the late Dr. Fisher, of Beverly, on worms and epileptic fits, was also published. In 1808 a committee was chosen to prepare a report on vaccination, which was given to the public. At this time the public had gone so far as to place confidence in vaccination, but were not aware that those who received it, in some cases, were still i exposed to disease. The committee, in publishing their report, ap- prized the public of the fact, that, in a future day, they might not lose confidence in vaccination if a case of small pox should occur in one vaccinated. [In answer to a question here by Mr. Dexter, Dr. J. said, a report on typhoid fever, of upwards of 100 pages, was compiled from 300 cases in the Mass. General Hospital, and published in the same way.] The society has, for eight or nine years, caused some valuable medical work to be published, and furnished a copy to each Fellow gratuitously. The advantage of this has been, in calling the attention of the profession to one subject at the same time. I would also men- J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 39 tion, that a report on spotted fever, and a history of the cholera, com- piled by a committee of five, were also published at the expense of the society. The same may be said of the Pharmacopoeia, a useful work. I may here mention what the society has done about foreign leeches. The amount of them used by us is very large. A single apothecary has had 50,000 at a time. To make them more plenty and cheap, the society desired to promote their propagation in this country. They therefore offered a premium of 8500 to any person who should be able to effect this object. The society likewise offered a premium of 850 for the best dissertation on the evil effects of alcohol upon the human system, and obtained one on the subject from Dr. Sweetser. Three prize dissertations by individuals of the profession have also been published. They were presented for the Boylston prize. While one only could receive the prize, the others were considered so valuable that the Boylston committee, to whom they were presented, determined to publish them, which was done at the expense probably of about 1000' dollars. This expense was defrayed by a munificent Fellow of the society. A copy of these was sent gratuitously to every physician and medical student in the State. These things have been done for the benefit of medical science, though publishing books was not the pri- mary object of the society. I think I am safe in saying, that in every village in our Commonwealth may be found a better educated physician than one in twenty of those practising when I entered the profession. This change, as I conceive, has been mainly wrought by the influence of the Medical Society. The by-laws of the society required students to spend full three years in study, and that none should be approbated whom the censors did not solemnly think fit to be intrusted with the life and health of mankind. The censors, as I believe, are rigid in their examinations, and have sometimes turned by their own pupils. I think the 8th by-law has been the great lever by which the society has operated. The object of this by-law is to discourage those from coming into the profession who are not regularly educated. It has been salutary in its operation. It has sometimes been broken; but in those counties in which the law has been best observed, the profession has risen the highest. If the welfare of a patient could not be served otherwise, the physician would consult with an irregular practitioner. He would not, of course, do this habitually, to encourage irregular practice. With regard to consultation, I would say, that I should be governed by circumstances. If a physician was merely passing through the city, 40 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. and stopped a few days without designing to remain, I should feel at liberty to consult with him, if the case, in my judgment, required it. And this I could do without censure. If such an one asked for con- sultation, and 1 thought the case a doubtful one, I should endeavor to obtain the opinion of my medical brethren in my vicinity before I acted. If a physician came into the city to stop for a time and adver- tised for practice, neglecting or refusing to put himself in the way of obtaining the fellowship of the society, then the case would be clear. By his neglecting or refusing to become a member of the society, he would manifestly declare that he did not wish its countenance, and, therefore, I, as a member of the society, should not feel justified in making advances. He would be clearly an irregular practitioner, and I should not wish to associate with him. If a physician were sent for from another State, to remain for a few days only, if the case he was called to required consultation, I should feel myself authorized to yield it. The case of Dr. Vanderburgh, which has been referred to in the course of this examination, is in point. He was called here at the wish of a very respectable family, and under the circumstances I felt there was no impropriety in consulting with him, although I did not, myself, consult with him. The difference between Dr. Peirson's con- sultation with Dr. Strong and Dr. Bartlett's connection with Williams, must be obvious. Dr. Strong was a regularly graduated physician from the Berkshire Medical School. He was well known to the pro- fession, and it was understood he was ready to unite with the Medical Society so soon as a certain impediment, relating to the school from which he graduated, should be removed. Williams came here making great pretensions to cure disease by secret remedies, and being irre- sponsible in his practice. The 8th by-law would never be enforced where irregular consultation had been held to save life. There is no practical difficulty in making the distinction between cases like Dr. Peirson's and Dr. Bartlett's. The report to the counsellors of the Medical Society, October 5th, 1836, expresses the sentiment of the society on the subject of consultations. This report is in the hands of the committee.* * At a stated meeting of the Counsellors of the Massachusetts Medical Society, October 5lh, 1836, the following report was read and accepted ; and the Committee on publications were directed to cause it to be published and distiibuted— The Committee appointed at the staled meeting of ihe counsellors, in May" last, "to in- quire and report whether any facts have come to their knowledge of the violation of the 8Qi by-law, relating to consultations, t&c." respectfully ask leave to report— J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 41 When speaking of what the Medical Society had done in the way of diffusing knowledge, I should have added, that, during the cholera panic, all the works that could be obtained on the subject of that dis- ease were imported from England and France for the benefit of medi- That, at the same meeting, a communication was received from a Fellow of the Society, charging ten individuals with a violation of this by-law, and one with a violation of the 9th by-law This communication was referred to the same Committee ; and the recording sec- retary, at the request of the Committee, immediately after the meeting, addressed a letter to the gentleman who brought forward the charges, informing him of the appointment of the Committee and of their readiness to receive any evidence or facts of which he might be in possession, that would support the charges that he had advanced. No reply, however, was made to this, and the Committee, after wailing several weeks, directed their chairman to make another application for the same purpose, which was ac- cordingly done on the 8th of August. But no answer was received to this note till October 3d, and this was merely a repetition of the charges, with the names of the individuals, and of those of two or three not in the first letter. No evidence whatever was furnished. The Committee cannot forbear the expression of their surprise, that any Fellow of this society should make charges of a grave character against other Fellows, and some of them, too, among the most respectable members of our institution, without being prepared to ex- hibit the proofs on which he grounded his accusations. The Committee did not ft-el that thej' had a right to call upon the individuals thus arraigned, as they were not in possession of the slightest evidence of their guilt; and even if they did not believe them innocent, though they certainty had no reason to think them otherwise, it would be a novel mode of conducting an investigation of this character, to call upon the accused to furnish evidence that might lead to their own conviction. The Committee would further remark, that one of the individuals thus accused, is not a Fellow of the society, having withdrawn from it many years since, and that his name has been inadvertently continued on the list. They would also observe, that the Fellow who is charged with violating the 9th by-law, by recommend- ing a patent medicine, however widely he may have deviated from the spirit of the law, has not, as will be seen by referring to it, violated its letter. And here the Committee might close their report by remarking, that "no facts have come to their knowledge, of the violation of the 8th by-law," which require the animadversion of the society ; but before doing this they would respectfully invite the attention of the coun- sellors to one or two points connected with this subject. In the first place, then, they would remark, that there is a palpable difference in the con- duct of those individuals, who, by accident, inadvertence, or from a belief that some good may be effected by it, have occasionally met and consulted with irregular practitioners, and the course of those, who, at all times, consult with such practitioners, knowing their true standing, and at the same time avow their determination of persisting in such practices. It no doubt occasionally happens to a Fellow of this society to be called to a patient, and to find on his arrival that he is in the charge of an irregular practitioner, to whom the physi- cian is, perhaps, for the first time introduced. He may be unacquainted with his true stand- in"-) and the time may be too precious to be lost in inquiries on the subject; or. if he knows, the situation of the patient may be such, that, by refusing to act, and to act promptly, he would be justly liable to the charge of inhumanity. Another case, and one where the course is still less doubtful, may occur. A Fellow of ihe society may be called to meet a physician of good education, but who has perhaps so recently come into the State, that there has not been time for him to be licensed by the cen- 6 42 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. cal science, at the expense of the society. A report was made, and two maps published, showing the progress of the disease, from its ori- gin in India to its introduction in Europe. This was done under the direction of a committee of seven. By the knowledge thus ob- sors, or who for some other cause is not in good standing with our institution. He may be ignorant of the laws and unacquainted with the method which he should adopt to obtain fel- lowship. It would be obviously unjust to class such an individual with ignorant and design- ing empirics; and the proper course for a member of our society seems to your Committee, to be, to meet such a person, and to explain to him the nature of our institution, the object of its laws, and the mode of admission, and thus induce him to attach himself to it, and in this way give additional efficiency to our rules. Both of the supposed cases were more likely to happen formerly, when the society was small and its influence inconsiderable, than at present; and much more likely to occur in the country, where the practitioners are remote from each other, than in the larger towns, where from their proximity, the character and standing of every one must be known. Though the Committee have made these suggestions to palliate occurrences of the kind alluded to, they are at the same time of opinion, that they should be avoided at all limes, as far as possible, and they deem it to be the duty of ever}' Fellow of the society scrupulously to adhere to the spirit of its laws. They cannot persuade themselves that the cases which would justify a deviation from them can be of frequent occurrence. The Committee would remark, in the second place, that there seems to be a misappre- hension in the minds of some, as to the object of our laws relating to consultations. There are many who affect to think, and there are perhaps a few who actually believe, that these laws are made for the benefit of the profession, when, in truth, as the least reflection will show, their sole purpose is to promote the good of the community; to guard the public against ignorant, designing, and unprincipled pretenders. Medical men alone are compe- tent to judge of the qualifications of the practitioners of the healing art, and it is their duty to point out a course of education to be pursued by those who intend to enter on this ardu- ous and responsible calling. There surely can be no ground of complaint on the part of candidates for the medical profession, provided that it be neither difficult nor burdensome to comply with the requirements to enter it. Now it is notorious that this is not the case in this Commonwealth, and consequently there is nothing exclusive in the character of our regulations. Having established then a course of education, and fixed the manner by which the parlies are to give evidence that they have successfully pursued it, the profession are bound by the duty which they owe to their fejlow citizens, to say to all who do not choose to pursue this course and give this evidence, that if they undertake to practise the healing art, they will hold no professional communion with them. We have then discharged our duty to the com- munity, and if they employ such unlicensed persons, they do it on their own responsibility ; no blame can rest on us. The regulations of our society, in relation to those who have been educated out of the State, are neither oppressive nor unreasonable, as they have sometimes been represented, but are on the contrary of the most liberal character. They require onty that such persons should give evidence of having gone through a course of study equal to that which is de- manded by our own laws. The diplomas of all respectable institutions are received as evi- dence of this course, provided these institutions require as long a period of study before the examination is made, as is done here. It may not perhaps be necessary to require more than this, but less could not be demanded in justice to the public. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 43 tamed, the committee were enabled to recommend such measures as were best adapted to check its progress. The committee recommended cleanliness, and it is believed, that where it was strictly observed, the disease prevailed much less than where it was disregarded. The soci- ety incurred considerable expense in publishing these reports. During the last ten years, the society has expended from four to six hundred dollars per annum in publishing works for distribution This, then, is all our society undertakes to do in relation to practitioners of medicine in this Commonwealth. In what consists the oppression ? Where is the monopoly 1 What are the exclusive privileges we enjoy 1 We merely point out a course of medical study, which we deem it necessary for the welfare and safety of the community for every practi- tioner of medicine to pursue, and if he does not choose to give evidence that he has done this, we say that we will hold no professional intercourse with him. We do nothing more ; and if he be not successful in his profession, the fault may be in him ; it certainly is not with us. Can we do less than this 1 Should we not be wanting in our duly to the public and our- selves if we neglected to do it ? Would it be right, by consulting with such individuals, to declare to the world, as we certainly should do, that we believed them to be well educated ? When, to say the least, we have no evidence of the fact. Who has a right to complain of our course ? Not our fellow citizens, for they can employ whom they please; and the practitioners, who will not conform to our rules as to a proper course of study, cannot blame us if we will not receive them as associates and fellow laborers. To deny us the privilege of determining with whom and on what terms we will hold pro- fessional intercourse, would be a gross violation of our rights, to which we ought not, and to which we never could submit. It is an interference with our personal concerns that cannot be tolerated. The Committee deem it proper to remark, in conclusion, that the course which this socie- ty has adopted in relation to consultation, seems to be fully authorized, if not actually con- templated by the Legislature, in the act of incorporation passed in 1781. By this act, it will be perceived, that the President and Fellows, or such officers as they may appoint, are au- thorized to examine candidates for the practice of physic and surgery, as to their skill in their profession ; and if the officers thus appointed shall refuse to examine any candidates who may offer themselves, each and every one of the examiners shall be subject to a fine of one hundred pounds, to be recovered by the candidate, for his own use, in any court in this Commonwealth. And in the same act, the following forcible language is used, showing very strikingly the sentiments of the Legislature on this subject: " It is clearly of impor- tance that a just discrimination should be made between such as are duly educated, and perfectly qualified for the duties of their profession, and those who may ignorantly and wickedly administer medicine, whereby the health and lives of many valuable individuals may be endangered, or perhaps lost to the community." It is believed that our society will be ever anxious to make this disciimination, and that the regulations formed for this purpose, having no private or personal object in view, will be complied with uniformly and with cheerfulness by all its members. If this be done in good faith, it cannot be doubted, that the public good will be essentially promoted, and that our institution will he regarded with increased favor by the community. Which is respectfully submitted, by GEO. HAY WARD,! E. HALE, Jr., > Committee. EBNR. ALDEN, } Boston, Oct. 5th, 1836. 44 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. among its Fellows. District societies are benefited by being furnished with books on loan from the library of the society. The Medical So- ciety has tended to prevent quackery, not by opposition, but by fur- nishing the public with regularly educated physicians, and distinguish- ing those who are so. In reference to the management of the affairs of the society, I would remark, that it has often been found difficult to procure gentlemen to • fill its offices, and that when good officers have been obtained, so oner- ous have been their duties that it has been necessary to urge them to continue. I am aware, that the motives of those most actively engaged have been misapprehended, and that their activity has been ascribed to selfishness, when it was based in a desire to promote the general good. But I am happy to know that many entertaining these views have changed them, upon a more intimate acquaintance with the truth. There is no law of the society enjoining secrecy on our proceedings. We transact our business very much as do other corporations. The doors are open and shut without regard to privacy. I remember one case, in which the character of an individual was involved, and the presiding officer, to prevent any unpleasant consequences, requested • some who were accidentally present, but not members of the society, to retire, notifying them that when the business was transacted they should be informed, that they might return and hear the discourse. There was no injunction of secrecy in this case. The proceedings of this society have for several years been published. I was present at the examination of Dr. Bartlett before the counsel- lors, previously to his trial. The mode of his examination was not oppressive. He had every opportunity to make his defence. To pre- vent confusion in his mind, all questions were addressed him through the president. 1 was likewise present at the trial of Dr. Bartlett, on which occasion the remarks imputed to Dr. Peirson, in his memorial, , are said to have been made. I am confident none such, nor any breathing the same spirit, were uttered by Dr. P. The idea of disre- garding the duties of humanity from a regard to specific rules of con- duct, would never be countenanced by the Fellows of the society, nor by physicians generally. Practically there is no difficulty in deciding when a disregard to the letter of the law is proper. A physician should hold to professional rules when his own interest is concerned, but when the welfare and real safety of the sick is concerned, he is to regard them first. The " sacrifice of human life" to preserve the by- laws, is a sentiment I disclaim, and which I know is not entertained J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 45 by the society. There are some more vague and general charges against the society or its Fellows, in Dr. B's memorial, which I believe to be utterly groundless. There was a diveisity of opinion about his expulsion. Some thought it inexpedient, for reasons already stated by other witnesses. The majority, however, thought otherwise. There was no manifestation of ill will towards Dr. Bartlett, that I am apprized of, by any member of the Medical Society. I believe the influence of the Medical Society on young members to be in the highest degree beneficial. I form this opinion from my own experience. I very well recollect, that soon after I commenced practice, I inquired of a phy- sician, advanced in life, whether there was any tribunal to which I could go to prove my qualifications, saying, it would be worth a hun- dred pounds to a young man. But, although a Fellow of the society, he said there was not, and that it was of no consequence. At that time licenses were granted by the society, and degrees at Cambridge, but they were not regarded as of essential importance. So satisfied, however, did I become of the utility of a regular introduction into the profession, that I took a degree two years after I commenced business. I did this that I might more consistently enforce the principle in future on others. The medical diploma does not certify as to the natural abilities or talent of the graduate, but that he has pursued a proper course of study, and passed the requisite examination. The older members of the profession labor for the benefit of the younger. 1 have never known any leaguing of the few to control the many. Dr. Waterhouse has not been considered a member of the society since about 1805 or 1806. As a matter of courtesy he was marked on the catalogue as a retired member. That mark has a more definite meaning now than it had at that time. I never saw him at any meet- ing of the society that I can remember, and certainly not since 1806. He has not been charged with assessments since that period, as I be- lieve, nor do I think him to have been amenable to the by-laws, since the year he is marked as having retired. Cross-examined by Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Jackson, allow me to ask, if the immortal Jenner had come here for a few weeks to practise, and diffuse the knowledge of vaccination, would you, as a member of the Mass. Medical Society, have consulted with him? Ans. Such a case is hardly supposable, for medical men, of real worth and eminence of character, do not travel from place to place to practise. I should suspect such a man, and avoid him. Jenner pub- lished his discovery for the good of mankind, and his publications 46 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. answered every purpose of his coming here. But supposing such a case to occur, I should not unite with him, without having represented the case to my professional brethren, and invited their concurrence. By such consent and co-operation, all suspicion of selfishness would be removed. Quest. Suppose a man to come into the city for ten or twelve weeks, having accredited diplomas, and during that time have no op- ( portunity to join the society, would you then, as a member of that societv, consult with him 1 Ans. W~e cannot know any thing of a man's qualifications, nor of his claims to confidence, unless he presents them for our examination. If such a person should come here and advertise for practice, and, at the same time, manifest no desire to connect himself with the society, I certainly should decline his acquaintance. If, however, he really wished to join the society and enjoy its privileges, and was prevented in consequence of the censors not having a session, the case would be different. An honest man will find no difficulty in conducting himself in such a manner as to show that he is not actuated solely by personal interest, but by a regard for the public. I In answer to a question by Dr. Bartlett, Dr. J. said, I am not aware that the Medical Society exercises censorship of the press. I think the article published in the Pilot, concerning Dr. Williams, expressed the sentiment of a physician, as the writer spoke of his degree and of his experience as a physician The present organization of the Medical Society I believe the best for the interests of medical science. It aims to elevate the character of professional attainments, and there are doors enough through which a man may enter, if he choose. We recognise all who are willing to conform to the terms of membership. If others do not choose to re- cognise us, we do not complain. They only exercise their right; and they should not complain if we do not recognise them. It is not for seven hundred to court one. Quest. What is the difference between a dentist and an oculist, in relation to other members of the profession 1 Ans. Generally, their character is essentially the same. In some respects, however, there is a difference. The simple extraction of a tooth, being mechanical, may be done without any knowledge of medi- cal science. But the application of remedies to the eye requires a knowledge of medical science, and so does a treatment of diseases of the teeth. To illustrate his opinion, Dr. J. said, that a man treating J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 47 diseases of the joints, &-c. by external remedies, practised surgery, and that this was not a new opinion of his, to meet the present case, for he had stated the same on another occasion. Mr. Hewett had once called on him, wishing that he would aid him in a suit at law, by certifying that he (Hewett) was not a surgeon. But he (Dr. J.) felt bound to say to him, that he practised surgery, though he would not be ready to > say that he did it scientifically, or that he did it well, having never wit- nessed his method of operation. Question by Dr. Bartlett. Do you think the affairs of the Medical Society are managed as well and as usefully as they were ten or twenty years ago? Ans. Of late years, the purposes of the Medical Society have been more fully answered than formerly. Question by Mr. Hinckley. What would be the effect of repealing the charter of the Mass. Medical Society? Ans. I think the repeal of its charter would be injurious to the community. It would be so because community would not be so well able to determine who were, and who were not regularly educated i practitioners. It would also be an inconvenience to us, from having so long acted under a charter. Even if devoted to scientific objects only, a charter would be convenient. This has been shown lately in the instance of the Boston Society for Medical Improvement. This society is confined entirely to scientific objects, yet has found a charter necessary, and has obtained one at the present session of the General Court. The repeal of our charter would deprive young physicians, regularly educated, of the advantages they now enjoy. At the meeting at which Dr. Bartlett was expelled, and just before his expulsion, he brought forward general and loose charges, against various Fellows of the society, for infractions of the 8th by-law. The society proceeded on the business in which they were engaged, and did not stop to investigate the matters thus brought forward. The next day, at a meeting of the counsellors, I alluded to those charges, and said, that though vague, and not coming from a source deserving much regard, they ought to be attended to, for the honor of the persons at- tacked, if for no other motive. I therefore moved, that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether there was any ground for those charges, and before whom any persons supporting them might appear. While this motion was under consideration, Dr. Lewis produced a written statement, containing in substance the same charges which had been preferred by Dr. Bartlett. A committee was then appointed to 48 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. attend to that matter, and the report of that committee was printed. It is the one before referred to.* Dr. Peirson, of Salem, sworn and examined. Dexter. Dr. Peirson, I wish to ask you a few questions on certain points in this case. Dr. Bartlett in the tenth allegation of his memori- al, has charged you with using certain language and uttering certain sentiments before the Mass. Medical Society at their annual meeting \ on the occasion of his trial, to wit: " That the laws of the Mass. Medical Society do not recognise the sentiment, that a regard for mo- rality and the general good of mankind is, in any wise, incumbent on its members; and that its members are bound to obey the by-laws of the society without reserve, even though the sacrifice of human life be the consequence." Did you, or did you not, utter this language 1 Ans. It is utterly false that I used the language, or uttered the sen- timents imputed to me by Dr. Bartlett in his memorial. It is false in language and false in idea It is false in general and false in particu- lar. The report of his trial is very fair. I should say his remarks are more fully reported than mine; but 1 do not think any partiality was meant. As to saying human life was not to be regarded, if to regard I it was to disobey the laws of the society, I disavow the sentiment. I could not have uttered it at such a time, and in such a place. It would * See page 40. In reference to this matter Dr. J. wishes to have the following note added. The measures pursued in this case were the same as in the ease of Dr. Bartlett, so far as they went. In his case a committee of inquiry was appointed, without mentioning Dr. B's name, so that his name might not appear on the journal until some specific charge was made out. To this committee specific charges were made against Dr. Bartlett, and evidence was adduced in support of them. Dr. B was then informed that such specific charges had been brought, and that he would be heard in his defence at a meeting of the counsellors. In reference to the cases referred to in the text, where the names had been brought for- ward by Dr. Lewis, a committee of inquiry was likewise appointed. To that committee any one could have brought specific charges and the evidence to support them Dr. Lewis was called upon by the committee, as his charges had not been specific, and as they were unaccompanied by evidence. His reply to the committee was, that he had no evidence to produce. Here then the mailer stopped, for no other person brought forward any evi- dence. If the committee had called upon the parties accused when they had not any evi- dence whatever against tbem, a practice would have been introduced which might have led to the accusation in turn of every Fellow of the society. I think it proper to add, that one or more of the persons accused, not satisfied with this state of things, did bring before the counsellors their own cases, with such explanation as that the counsellors did not think proper to censure them. The above statement is made from memory without consulting the records of the society and the documents on file ; but I am satisfied that it is substantially correct. W*?r J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 49 have produced a general burst of indignation. I never entertained such a thought. I never believed such a doctrine. I never avowed such a principle. I never uttered any where, at any time, such an ex- pression. I most solemnly deny it in thought or word. I deny it in general, in detail, out and out. What I did say on the occasion of Dr. Bartlett's trial has been gross- ' ) ly perverted. The simple truth in the case was this : Dr. B. as one ground of justification of his course, assumed that it was legal, that he had done nothing which transcended the rules and laws of the society. To prove this, he read an extract from the " Boston Medical Police," the rules and regulations of another association, which he mistook for the by-laws of the Mass. Medical Society. By this he purposed to show, that the rules of the society sanctioned his conduct. In reply, I said he had misapprehended the matter, that the clause on which he founded his argument was not in the books of the Mass. Medical Soci- ety, nor was it in any article of the by-laws, and consequently that it did not relate to the affairs of the society. The point I wished to es- tablish was, that Dr. Bartlett's argument for the legality of his conduct ) was not valid, inasmuch as it was based on the code of a private, local association, and not, as he supposed, on the language of our by-laws. And it is on this ground, that I have been charged in his memorial, with saying, that the members of the society are bound to obey its by- laws without reserve, even though the sacrifice of human life be the consequence. That I never made, nor was understood to make such a declaration, the certificate of Drs. Warren, Hale and Homans, clear- ly proves. [Here Dr. P. read the certificate which is inserted on p. 18.] Between my consultation with Dr. Strong and Dr. Bartlett's inter- course with Williams, about which so much has been said, there is no kind of analogy. Dr. Strong was a regular graduate of the Berkshire Medical Institution. He had often expressed a desire to become a member of the Mass. Medical Society, and was prevented from so do- ing only out of regard to the feelings of his friends connected with the former institution. He finally did determine to join the Mass. Medical Society, and was on nomination at the time of Dr. Bartlett's trial. I was called to consult with Dr. Strong in the case of a young lady in Miss Grant's school, at Ipswich. I informed the District Society, to which I belonged, what I had done. At the annual meeting of the general Society, when Dr. Bartlett's trial took place, I stated the rea- sons for my consultation, and expressed my willingness, if it were 7 50 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. thought wrong, to submit to any discipline they might choose td impose. Now there is a manifest difference between a physician's placing himself in this attitude and taking the ground assumed by Dr. Bartlett, viz., that he would consult with whomever he pleased, when- ever he pleased, and wherever he pleased, in violation of the by-laws of the society, which he had awieed to obey. With regard to Dr. Bartlett's 12th allegation, that I objected to the I reading before the counsellors of his letter, in which he says " he ex- postulated with the society in a most respectful manner," I did, I be- believe, in common with all the rest of that body, (at least, with a majority, for a vote was taken on the subject,) object to the reading of a long letter, which was printed and offered for sale at the bookstores. The ground of my objection was, that this letter was, generally, most disrespectful to the society, and intended to convey a gross personal insult to me in particular. If you turn to the first page of that letter, you will find the following language, which is totally at variance with Dr. Bartlett's present declaration that he does not consider Dr. Wil- liams a practitioner of medicine or surgery, and that he did not consult with him, nor aid and abet him professionally, but only editorially : ' " In the course of the investigation of this subject, it undoubtedly appeared manifest, that he [Dr. B.] had (X/^PUBLICLY (not covertly) aided, abetted and been in consultation with certain medical gentlemen, contemplated in the 8th article of the M. M. S. laws." He then goes on to quote part of the 8th by-law, defining what is meant by an irregular practitioner of medicine or surgery. I wish here to say, I never have entertained any personal ill feeling towards Dr. Bartlett. It was with reluctance I undertook to conduct the prosecution against him. I took a friendly interest in him when he first commenced practice, and I now cherish no unkind sentiments towards him. f The Committee, in conclusion, respectfully ask to be discharged from further consideration of the subject. For the Committee, EDWIN M. STONE, Chairman, J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 51 ADDENDA. > The following interrogatories and answers were acci- dentally omitted on page 16. The omission was not discovered until the work was too far advanced for inser- tion in their appropriate place. They should follow the answer to the question, " When did you take your de- gree ?" Dexter. How old was you at the time you received your degree? Ans. I was 18 on the 14th of May previous. Dexter. When did you become a member of the Mass. Medical ) Society 1 Ans. I cannot recollect. As you have the books, you can ascertain by examining them. Dexter. Is this your hand-writing? Ans. It is. Dexter. Then you became a member on----Feb., 1834. How old were you then 1 Ans. I am not arithmetician enough to say the multiplication table. If any gentleman present can calculate this important question, I shall be obliged to him for his services. Dexter. You were then between 22 and 23 years of age. Bartlett. I have no doubt of the fact. I know I was 18 in 1830, and have reason to believe I shall be 27 in 1839. I hope this impor- tant point is now settled. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 53 APPENDIX. Near the close of the last meeting, Dr. Bartlett said he wished to read an affidavit from Dr. Waterhouse, and a letter from the French Consul, which were in answer to certain interrogatories he had pro- pounded. Mr. Dexter said, if they were to be read in evidence, he should object, inasmuch as such evidence would be exparte, and he should claim the right to cross-question. If read merely for informa- tion it was perhaps a matter of little moment, and he should not be strenuous, though he thought them irrelevant to the examination of this evening. No appeal was made to the Committee, and Dr. B. read the documents, which, having completed, were folded up and taken away by him. Two days subsequently, just at the close of the session, after the report of the Committee had been accepted, and the Commit- tee discharged, the documents were placed in the hands of the chair- man, with a request from the counsel for Dr. B. that they might be 1 printed with the evidence. The affidavit of Dr. Waterhouse, the chairman of the Committee has not felt at liberty to incorporate with the evidence, not understanding it to have been offered as such at the time. This view was concurred in by two members of the Commit- tee, he having no opportunity to converse with the others. But that the strict impartiality which the Committee endeavored to maintain, may not be reasonably impugned, the paper from Dr. Waterhouse is inserted in this appendix. The letter from the French Consul, relat- ing to the diplomas of Dr. Williams, is not inserted, from a belief that the vote at the ninth meeting excludes it. The diplomas were not offi- cially examined by the Committee. 54 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. To the questions severally propounded below and following, I, Ben- jamin Waterhouse, return the answers thereto appertaining under oath, as follows, and as propounded by John Stephen Bartlett, Doctor of Medicine of Harvard University, to wit, on this eighth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine. 1. Were you ever a member of the Mass. Medical Society ? Ans. Yes. 2. Were you ever expelled, censured, reprimanded, or in any wise subjected to the penal discipline of the Mass. Medical Society? Ans. Not that I ever knew. 3. Did you ever by word, action, or letter, communicate to the offi- cers of the Mass. Medical Society, your intention or desire to with- draw from the Fellowship, honorary or active, of that body 1 Ans. Never. 4. Have you publicly recommended a certain Samuel Thomson, popularly known as the founder of what is called the " Thomsonian Sys- tem of Medicine," as a great public benefactor; and as a man eminent for medical research and skill; and have you published or caused to be published such recommendation over your own proper signature? Ans. 1 have. 5. Do you from personal observation and experience believe, that the Mass. Medical Society, has in the general sense, been productive of good or evil to the profession of medicine, or to the community at large, under its organization and by-laws as they existed in 1835 l Ans. I answer, that such restrictions as are contained in the by- laws of the society as above referred to, would not be tolerated in any civilized country, to my knowledge, excepting in this Commonwealth. U. In your opinion, are restrictive laws, (professionally speaking,) calculated to promote the advancement of medical science, when they exclude those under their influence, from availing themselves of the skill or science of educated men, who prefer not to subject themselves to local regulations, although their professional eminence may be in- dubitably proved? Ans. I think such laws improper, unwise, and absurd. 7. Is it your opinion, that a dissolution, or modified organization of the present Mass. Medical Society, would be for the welfare of the people of this Commonwealth, and for the interest of the medical pro- fession ? Ans. I think, that in order to effect good, the laws and organiza- tion of the society require essential change and modification. J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. 55 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. Middlesex, ss. Cambridge, April 8, 1839. Then personally appeared the within named Benjimin Waterhouse, and made oath to the truth of the within written answers to the ques- tions within propounded, and declared them to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Before me, ABRAHAM HILLIARD, Justice of the Peace. Attest. 1 L