** Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.” 
THE 
fiipmge of Hr. Jamoss 1. Irmsbg 
'j \j j SJ 
AGAINST THE CRITICISM OF HIS REPORT, 
CONSIDERED BY 
CHARLES A. ROBERTSON, A. M., M. D., 
Ophthalmic and Aural Surgeon at St. Peter's Hospital, and 
Surgeon of the Albany Eye and Ear Infirmary. 
“ Poen& gaudebis amarft 
“Nominis invisi, tandemque fatebere tetris, 
“ Nec surdnm nec Tiresiam quenquam esse deorum." 
ALBANY: 
THE ARGUS COMPANY, PRINTERS. 
1870. “If thou hast a truth to utter, 
Speak, and leave the rest to God ! ” 
To the Medical Reader: 
In the New York Medical Journal for March, Dr. James 
McbTaughton publishes a “ Reply ” (not an answer!) to Dr. 
Robertson’s critique. Regarding this Reply as entertaining, with 
all its maundering, Dr. Robertson is disposed to give it circula- 
tion, and, therefore, at his own expense, has ordered twice the 
number of reprints, in pamphlet form, which Dr. McHaughton 
modestly bespoke. In the Medical Journal there are prefatory 
remarks by the editor, and he also furnishes the Reply with a 
frontispiece, which, however creditable to the artist, Iiaines, dis- 
credits much that follows. 
The preliminary matter, by the editor and by Iiaines, is in the 
following language, but without italics and capitals : 
Dr. March’s Case. 
¥e have received from Albany a reprint copy,* from the pre- 
sent number of the Journal, of Dr. McHaughton’s reply to Dr. 
Robertson’s criticism on the original paper giving the account of 
the case. This reprint has pasted in it a slip which does not 
appear in the Journal communication, and is worded as follows :f 
Dr. Armsby never, to my knowledge, desired or expressed a wish to buy or 
suppress a negative of the picture of Dr. Marsh’s (sic) disease. He always pur- 
chased an equal number of copies of both to send or give away. 
E. S. M. HAINES, 
Photograph Booms, 478 Broadicay. 
Albany, January 29, 1870. 
* This reprint was issued in advance of the Journal, to allow of its distribution at the meeting 
of the State Medical Society. 
+ Since this paragraph was written, and in type, we have received from Professor Lansing, of 
Albany, presumably by Dr. McNaughton’s advice and consent, a request to insert in the Journal 
this slip. This request we have acceded to, and the above comment, therefore, is no longer 
strictly true. As a simple matter of justice, however, we deem it advisable to let the paragraph 
stand as written, and to give both sides of this singular transaction.—Ed. N. Y, Medicai, 
Journal. 4 
As pertinent to this matter, and as a part of the history of the 
controversy which has risen upon this case, we publish another 
statement by Mr. Haines, which has also been forwarded to us 
from Albany: 
On the 18th of June, the day after the death of Dr. March, Dr. Henry R. 
Haskins, Demonstrator of Anatomy in the Albany Medical School, brought to 
me a bladder and prostate gland, said to be from the body of Dr. March, and 
desired a photograph. Dr. Haskins called afterward and stated that Dr. Armsby, 
who was out of town when the photograph was ordered, was not pleased, for the 
appearances did not present themselves to suit him, and wished no more copies of 
tliis photograph to be sold. A few days after, he confidentially asked me what I. 
would take for the negative. I asked him whom he wanted it for, but he would 
not tell me; said no matter, and he wished no more to be said about it. I pre- 
sumed that Dr. Armsby wanted it, but I refused to sell it. 
On the 25th day of July the same specimen, which had been preserved in 
some fluid, was brought to me again, for the purpose of having me take another 
photograph. After the specimen had been gotten ready (in a manner 
so unusual as to occasion my subsequent comments), by Dr. Armsby, having 
molded it, as I have said, like putty, and trimmed it to iiis satisfaction, 
I took the negative picture. Copies of this negative only Dr. Armsby wished to 
be sold, as Dr. Haskins stated. 
I did state, to both Dr. Edward R. Hun and to Dr. Robertson, what I believed 
to be the fact, that Dr. Armsby was chiefly interested in this matter, 
and that I regarded Dr. Haskins as his agent. Since Dr. Armsby did not 
personally express to me a wish to buy or suppress a negative of the 
picture of Dr. March’s disease, I did not refuse to sign the paper, which he 
brought to me, for it was technically true; but I did not sign it with 
ANY INTENTION OF CONTRADICTING Dr. ROBERTSON. 
E. S. M. HAINES. 
Sworn to before me, this 7th 
day of February, 1870, 
J. M. Bailey, Notary Public. 
We may state here that, so far as this journal is concerned, we 
consider the controversy should now end. Both parties have now 
had an opportunity to bring forward their sides of the question, 
and we do not deem that the interests of science or a regard for 
the truth call for any further comment. The opinion of our 
readers, and of the profession at large, is, undoubtedly, well formed 
on the merits of the case, and, probably, no further discussion would 
materially alter such opinion. We deem it proper, however, to 
add that we have received from Dr. Robertson a rejoinder to Pro- 
fessor McNaughton’s reply. This rejoinder is most courteous in 
language and tone to Professor McNaughton, and expresses the 
greatest satisfaction at the appended letter of Professor Gross, 
which he (Dr. R.) claims fully substantiates the view he took as 
to the proper course to be followed in the treatment of the case.— 
A7. Y. Medical Journal. Then commences Dr. McNaughton’s “Reply.” 
In presenting a reprint of Dr. McNaughton’s “Reply” to the 
argument* against the treatment of Dr. March’s case, as set forth 
in the “ report,” published by Dr. James II. Armsby in the New 
York Medical Journal, in October last, Dr. Robertson expresses 
his satisfaction that, after publishing the affidavit of Haines, the 
photographer, which puts Dr. Armsby in a most discreditable 
position as to veracity, the editor of the Medical Journal thinks 
no rejoinder from Dr. Robertson necessary; and he does “not deem 
that the interests of science, or a regard for the truth calls for 
any further comment /” Leaving, therefore, Dr. McHaughton’s 
“ Reply,” as meriting no special notice as to scientific or logical 
value, a moment’s consideration of the matter of the two state- 
ments by Haines is requested. 
Dr. Robertson charged Dr. Armsby with tampering with speci- 
mens representing Dr. March’s disease, and with trying to pur- 
chase a negative picture of the photograph first taken, and desir- 
ing copies to be sold from a second negative only, taken more than 
a month after death, and misrepresenting the fresh appearance of 
the disease. Dr. Armsby does not deny the charge. He resorts, 
instead, to a shameful subterfuge. He procures the signature of 
the artist to a statement, that “ Dr. Armsby never,” &c.; that is, 
that Dr. Armsby, in person, never did what is charged, not that 
he did not do it by an agent. He pasted this contemptible evasion, 
printed on a slip of paper, in the pamphlet containing Dr. 
McNaughton’s “ Reply,” and a boy was employed to hand a copy 
to every member or visitor of the State Medical Society, at its 
recent session. This trick was intended to impeach the truthful- 
ness of Dr. Robertson’s statement; but how does the trickster 
appear, now that the whole truth comes out, sworn to by Haines ? 
Is not the last state of that man worse than the first ? On him has 
fallen the mantle of Alden March ! What a fall was that! Com- 
mence with Gehazi, continue with Ananias, and what would be a 
fit name to complete the catalogue? In this connection the follow- 
ing language, from a recent report of a committee to the Suffolk, 
Mass., District Medical Society (published in the Boston Medical 
* The review of the Armsby article is incorrectly but with perverse persistency called an 
attack. It is simply criticism, severe but merited. 6 
Journal) may be quoted, viz. : “ The truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth. Your committee know of no act of villainy 
greater than that which a scientific man commits when he volun- 
tarily takes the witness-stand and then fails to act upon this noble 
rule.” 
If there was not something to conceal, why the attempt to make 
the sun tell a story in the second photograph different from that 
incontinently Slabbed in the first? If the transaction was legiti- 
mate, why resort, by means of a slip of paper, to subtlety and sup- 
pression of part of the truth respecting it ? To whatever height 
falsehoods are cumulated, they serve no other purpose than to 
make greater the inevitable tumble which comes at last. What- 
ever was thought before, no one will doubt now, that something 
wrong was contemplated in this photographic imposition, so appro- 
priately supplemented with duplicity. It did not seem remarkable 
to read afterward, in the city newspapers, Dr. Davidson’s card,* 
publicly stigmatizing the chief actor in the above exhibition. Nei- 
ther he, nor any one for him, can now complain that his reviewer 
was too severe in his criticism. 
No one will think it strange that the self-respect of Professors 
Hun, Quackenbush, Yanderpoel and Mosher compelled them to 
resign their positions in the Albany Medical College, to be quit of 
him, and that the City Hospital, of which he is the autocrat, loses 
its most valuable medical attendants in consequence of him, and 
of the removal of Dr. Robertson, which he effected. The recent 
censure of him by the County Medical Society, was only a matter of 
course. 
Allusion may properly be made to the impropriety, or, as Dr. 
McNaughton prefers to call it, the “ brutality ” of the person, who 
sent a pamphlet, containing Dr. Robertson’s review, to the family 
of the deceased. The act was certainly improper, and the suspi- 
cion is that it was done by an unscrupulous person, in order that 
Dr. McNaughton might have pretext for hurling his envenomed 
. * A CARD. 
I am informed that Dr. James H. Armsby is circulating an anonymous letter, which is very 
derogatory to the character of Dr. James McNaughton as a teacher of medicine, and announcing 
that 1 am the author. I pronounce the assertion a willful and malicious falsehood, and caution 
the profession to discourage the circulation of the paper, as its only tendency is to injure the 
President of the College. 
J. REID DAVIDSON, M. D. 
Albany, February 1()th. 7 
sentence. It was much more unfeeling, though, that a brother-in- 
law should “ post with such dexterity ” to the dissection of the 
warm body of the deceased, before six hours had sped after his 
final breath. That was not “ usual treatment,” and in some coun- 
tries a post-mortem examination, so soon after death, is forbidden 
by law. 
But even this shocking, if not “ wicked speed,” is surpassed by 
the revolting narration that parts, healthy parts, too, not morbid 
specimens, of Dr. March’s body were transmitted through the 
country to Philadelphia, instead of being decently buried. No 
demand of science called for this heartless act; it was sacrilege, 
heinous and unpardonable. It seems unaccountable that one 
defending Dr. Armsby, the brother-in-law, should expose this 
great and deliberate unfeelingness, when he calls it “ brutality ” 
to send to the friends a pamphlet containing a criticism of the 
treatment published in a scientific journal. The nature which 
could be guilty of such shocking profanation of the remains of the 
dead, could readily violate the sensibilities of the living. Could 
the lamented artist, Elliot, come forth from his peaceful tomb, he 
would tell of the loved wife he left widowed, when the colors which 
glowed divinely in his life were extinguished. He would say how 
tenderly she nursed him, how appreciatively she felt every kind- 
ness or succor, that others seemed to extend to him. When, at 
last, his journeying done, and his reckoning settled by her as the 
final act, how happy she was to find in her husband’s physician 
one who knew his genius and valued his work, and she was more 
than glad to know that her limited means would be spared when 
the kind-hearted physician assured her that he had no account 
against her. Her grieving heart swelled with gratitude. She 
chose among her treasures the canvas animated by the portrait of 
the painter’s friend, touched and retouched lovingly from time to 
time with the marvelous brush of the skillful artist, and otfered 
this to the good doctor in lieu of a pecuniary requital. The choice 
gift was accepted with expression of seeming pleasure and appre- 
ciation, for the benevolent man called himself “ a patron of art.” 
Not long afterward a distinguished personage of New York city, 
well known in the profession, the friend of Elliot, was amazed to 
be told that his picture, in an elegant frame, was exposed for sale 8 
in Snedecor’s art store, price $500! When informed of the fact, 
the affronted and indignant woman reclaimed the portrait. She 
paid a bill presented by Dr. Armsby, and took back her pic- 
ture, after being at additional outlay of-eighty dollars for the 
frame. 
Let “the powers that wait on noble deeds” mete out judgment, 
the writer measures none. 
The writer cannot permit the opportunity to go by with- 
out expressing due acknowledgment of the fact to which Dr. 
MchTaughton queerly enough refers in the present connection, 
viz., that he has entertained so favorable an opinion of Dr. Robert- 
son in the practice of a specialty in medicine, as to often deem it 
for the interest of his patients that they should consult him. 
Although it is not clear what relation, in the mind of Dr. 
McHaughton, this has with the treatment of Dr. March’s case, it 
is doubtless a little comforting to him in his distress, to feel respect 
for his critic in the capacity of a specialist, while resenting the 
liberty the critic has taken to manifest training and knowledge as 
a physician, and to have the audacity to engage in a tilt with a 
brace of “ professors.” Certainly the venerable doctor does not mean 
to imply, by an insinuation, that an “ oculist ” is not a physician, 
or that diseases of the eye can be properly treated by any one not 
well educated in medicine and surgery. If he has heretofore 
entertained such a fallacy, he has doubtless ere this become con- 
vinced of his error. Dr. MeNaughton’s advertisement of Dr. 
Robertson as an “ oculist ” is objectionable, since the American 
Ophthahnological Society, of which the latter is a member, resolved 
at a recent session that this was not a professional title, and should 
not be announced. As Dr. Robertson’s kind friend is a stickler 
for “ medical ethics,” he will probably not so offend again. 
In order to show to the profession the kind of logic, in addition 
to personal detraction, with which Dr. Armsby tries to prove the 
incorrectness of the criticism of his report of Dr. March’s case, 
and to establish that he did not improperly treat the patient, the 
following letter to the Governors of the City Hospital is intro- 
duced, reprinted from the Albany Argus of January 24th, 
1869: 9 
To the (xovernors of the Albany City Hospital: 
Gentlemen—I have received official notice of my removal from the Albany 
City Hospital, and the fact having been published by the press in this city and in 
New York, I present publicly the following statement: 
Five years ago I came to Albany, after consultation as to the expediency of 
the movement with my friends, Drs. Agnew, Bumstead and Hinton, surgeons in 
the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary. I called on the leading members of the 
profession here, and stated to what branch of medicine I purposed confining my 
practice, and mentioned my credentials, both from home and abroad. I was 
courteously received by all, and my amicable feelings towards them were never 
disturbed, except in the case of one person, whose covert conduct early troubled 
me, and whose discourtesy and meddling offended me. 
After I had been in Albany two years or more, having secured the confidence 
of the profession generally, as I had indubitable evidence in the fact, that promi- 
nent members of it not only recommended patients to me, but honored me by 
consulting me themselves, and by entrusting members of their families to my 
care, I began to make efforts tending to the establishment of an Eye and Ear 
Infirmary of a charitable character. I spent a good deal of time in the unenvia- 
ble labor of trying to enlist sympathy and co-operation, Occasionally, I met 
with a reception characterized by a kind of civility that was not encouraging, 
but still I persevered in my self-imposed task, and in December, 1867,1 had the 
satisfaction of having effected an organization, legally incorporated under the 
title of the Albany Charitable Eye and Ear Infirmary. Gen. John F. Rathbone 
was elected President, and Peter Cagger, Esq., Vice-President, 
It still remained necessary to obtain funds for putting in operation the newly 
created organization. By persevering efforts, and by argument before the Com- 
mittee of Ways and Means, strengthened with a petition bearing names of influ- 
ential public men in different parts of the State, as well as citizens of Albany, I 
succeeded in getting an appropriation from the Legislature of four thousand dol- 
lars, payable on condition that ten thousand dollars be obtained from other 
sources. I received conditional pledges of several thousand dollars from private 
citizens, and continued my efforts to procure the sum requisite for securing the 
four thousand dollars from the State treasury. In the meantime, at my own 
expense, I hired two rooms at the comer of Hudson and South Pearl streets, and 
opened them for the free treatment of the poor, afflicted with disease of the eye 
or ear. I did this nominally under the auspices of the incorporated infirmary. 
Patients repaired to this place, and the need of the charity was manifest. In 
order to provide hospital shelter for patients, requiring it in consequence of surgi- 
cal operations, Gen. Rathbone, the President of the Infirmary, made application 
to the Governors of the Albany City Hospital for permission to use for this pur- 
pose some of the many unoccupied beds of the Hospital. In a few days response 
was made, and truthfully, too, that there were no unoccupied beds. Suddenly as 
Clan Alpine’s warriors sprang multitudinously up, “ On right, on left, above, 
below,” at the shrill whistle of Roderick Dhu, so suddenly were these hospital 
beds peopled with patients. In a few more days the unrumpled coverlets bore 
quiet testimony of the rapid convalescence and departure of these patients! 10 
The Governors of the Hospital, through their President, now made overtures 
that the Eye and Ear Infirmary merge itself in a department of the Hospital, 
which they proposed to create. The statement was, that a building, next to the 
Hospital, had been purchased, at a cost of $10,000, for such department, and, 
indeed, a statement went the round of the newspapers that Mr. Thomas W. 
Olcott had purchased and generously donated it to the Hospital for an Eye and 
Ear Infirmary. 
Who originated such report in the newspapers is easily guessed. All know 
whose shoe fits in that track! Even while I was laboring to secure means to 
carry on the work of the infirmary just constituted, a short article appeared in 
the Evening Journal (February 10th, 1868), under the caption of “Eye and Ear 
Infirmary,” stating that “the patrons of the Albany City Hospital” were about 
to establish an Eye Infirmary and “ to occupy an adjoining building,” and the 
institution be carried on in connection with the Hospital. The publication of 
such an article, at such time, was clearly not meant to facilitate ,my enterprise. 
Dr. Armsby volunteered to assure me that he did not know who wrote the 
article. It had been already intimated to me, at the proper quarter, who did 
write it, and Dr. Armsby’s disavowal seemed peculiar. Nevertheless, whoever 
wrote or published that article, Dr. Armsby did take a paper-writing’ to Gen. 
Rathbone, for him to sign, after I had expressed my readiness to accept the over- 
tures of the Hospital, and to contribute the results of my labors to that institu- 
tion ; for the purpose of effecting a “ more economical and efficient conduct and 
management of the Eye and Ear Infirmary.” This paper-writing contained an 
affidavit, “ that the Hospital and Infirmary had formed a connection,” that the 
building above alluded to “ was purchased at a cost of ten thousand dollarsthat 
“ said building is made necessary by reason of the connection,” &c., &c., and, in 
fine, that the condition imposed by the State had been complied with, and the 
appropriation of four thousand dollars, which I had obtained, might now be 
legitimately paid out by the State Treasurer. Relying on the statements of Dr. 
Armsby, that this affidavit was true, and being confirmed by my assurance, that 
I believed it true, and done in good faith, the President of the Infirmary signed 
the document. An order for the payment of the four thousand dollars to Mr. 
Thomas W. Olcott, President of the Board of Governors, was also signed by 
Gen. Rathbone, as President, and myself, as surgeon. The Comptroller paid the 
money to Mr. Olcott as ordered, and took Mr. Olcott’s receipt in March, 1869. 
Every reasonable person will naturally assume that good faith was kept on 
both sides; that the purchased building was occupied for the avowed purposes; 
that Gen. Rathbone was not deceived, or apparently compromised; that Dr. 
Robertson was treated with just consideration, and that the large sum of money 
which he had been the means of bringing to the Hospital, was not diverted from 
the object contemplated by the Legislature of the State. 
By resolution of the Governors, Nov. 6, 1868, Dr. Robertson was constituted 
Ophthalmic and Aural Surgeon of the Hospital, and in a few days he began his 
professional work. The adjoining building was not to be vacated until spring. 
Accordingly, a sort of crypt, under the Hospital, was furbished a little, and there 
the Eye and Ear Infirmary was placed, I may properly say, as the event has 11 
proved, interred. In May, I860, “ the building, made necessary bjr the connection,” 
w;ts, strangely enough, hired from the Hospital for a year by the occupant from whom 
it had been purchased! At a recent meeting of the Governors, a committee was 
appointed, as I am told, to let it for another year! So much for the building. Now, 
how have I been treated, personally, by the authorities of the Hospital, to which I 
have rendered unpaid services for more than a twelvemonth, and which has 
taken and appropriated the money, the result of my efforts to establish an 
Infirmary for an unfortunate class of the poor? This is the answer: At a meet- 
ing of the Governors of the Hospital, held at the Mechanics’ and Farmers’ Bank 
on the 13th of January inst., a resolution Was passed, constituting a certain medi- 
cal practitioner an associate to alternate with me. Last June, Dr. Armsby, 
unknown to me, and to other leading members of the Hospital staff, had the 
presumption to originate a petition, to which he secretly obtained a few signa- 
tures, for the accomplishment of this identical project. He procured the pre- 
sentation of the petition to the Board of Governors. A member of the Board 
was struck with the remarkable omission of names. He inquired if Dr. Robert- 
son desired an associate; if he regarded the person proposed as competent, or as 
agreeable; whether he knew anything about the petition, and pronounced it an 
insult to him, if gotten up without his knowledge, and said that he would not be 
a party to offering Dr. Robertson an indignity. The matter was thereupon 
dropped. 
This gentleman was absent from town when the recent meeting took place, 
and had no knowledge that a meeting was contemplated, although he made 
inquiry before leaving home; and he has not changed the opinions that he 
expressed in June. Just before the meeting, on the 13th, adjourned, Mr. Olcott 
proposed my removal from the Hospital. The preamble to his resolution states 
that the interests of the Hospital “ made it expedient.” The motion was put and 
carried, the negatives not called. No debate took place, as the result was a fore- 
gone conclusion. This appears from a remark made by one of the Governors to 
another, on entering the bank, that part of the business of the meeting was to 
remove Dr. Robertson. 
After learning the fact of my removal, I called on some of the Governors. 
Several let me understand that the action of the meeting was not in accordance 
with their judgment. One gentleman, who sustained the action, assured me that 
there was no intention on the part of any one to insult me; that there was no 
dissatisfaction with the management of my department, or want of respect for 
my professional qualifications; but, as it was said that the usefulness of the Hos- 
pital seemed imperilled by dissensions in the medical staff, the Governors felt it 
necessary to act as they did in order to secure harmony. I replied that I was 
glad to know that there was no intention to inflict an outrage on me, but, never- 
theless, I could not but feel that a great injustice had been committed, both in 
depriving me of the fruit of my labors, and in pronouncing judgment against me 
in a secret conclave, without giving me an opportunity to be heard. 
It transpired that the dissension was one between Dr. Armsby and myself. The 
fact that I repudiated all relations with him, for what seemed to me good and 
sufficient reasons, never had created any trouble in the hospital, and never could 12 
so long as each of us faithfully discharged our duties to our patients in our own 
provinces, without meddling with affairs which do not pertain to the functions of 
the medical officers of the hospital. But the Governors thought differently, or 
else they regarded Dr. Armsby as entitled to dominant rights in the hospital, and 
themselves as merely the placemen to execute his will,* and sacrifice any gentle- 
man on the medical staff who does not regard him and his nature with admira- 
tion, who does not confide in his mild and measured tones, and think that all his 
statements are free from guile and never require corroboration. 
Why Dr. Armsby should possess prerogatives unheard of in any other hospital, 
is asserted to be for the reason that he has done a great deal for the Albany hospital. 
So he has, but the institution has done more for him. It is, in no inconsiderable 
degree, a valuable placer, where he picks up many a nice little nugget. It is, also, an 
engine of power, like the college, which he has been able, again and again, to 
wield against men who certainly were as well informed in medicine as he, and 
whose maintenance of professional honor could not be impeached. With these 
engines, and by his unrestrained assumption and license he has bred discord in 
the profession repeatedly, until at last, the abused patience of men can tolerate 
the annoyance no longer. He has become generally obnoxious to the profession, 
and the Governors of the hospital will soon discover that, besides doing me injus- 
tice, they have made a mistake in expecting harmony in the medical staff to 
result from their action. 
The charitable character of the hospital, it would, perhaps, be out of place to por- 
tray now; another occasion will be better; enough, that no one who knows it as I 
have known it, would think of conceding to any man peculiar honor or privilege 
in grateful recognition of it. The “new part” of the hospital, the great work of 
Dr. Armsby’s genius, is simply a boarding-house for private patients, and, occa- 
sionally, for other persons, if it pleases the proper authority. 
Those citizens who subscribed, recently, in sums ranging from five dollars 
upwards, thinking in their honesty that they were aiding the poor, parted with 
their money to build this boarding-house for patients who require no charity, and 
it remains to be shown that a dime of the money obtained by Dr. Armsby was 
ever expended for the needy sick.f Nevertheless, this efficient getter of contri- 
butions claims distinction, lordship, privilege, and the Governors back him, not 
because of his superiority as a scholar, a practitioner or a man, but, forsooth, 
because he has done so much for the hospital, that is, so much for a boarding- 
house for his patients ! I am confident that, while money may be got for such 
* He has influenced the Governors of the hospital into action which does honor neither to their 
heads nor their hearts. St. Peter’s Hospital, under the benign auspices of the Sisters of Mercy, 
has just been inaugurated, and the Governors of the Albany City Hospital vote to prohibit the 
medical officers of the latter from giving their services to the former hospital! Gentlemen who 
rarely see the outside even of the hospital in which they profess to be concerned, forbidding 
humane doctors from visiting the sick and the poor without reward, in whatever place they may 
be ! What means this ? Surely religious intolerance is not cropping out in this fungous proscrip- 
tion, is it? “The quality of mercy is not strained” in St. Peter’s Hospital. The sick, of every 
religious belief, are cared for there alike, and its medical officers are not restrained by any illib- 
eral rule or insolent dictation, from doing good, wherever they have opportunity. 
t It is said that not one bed has been added to the number intended for the poor, although 
some $40,000 have been obtained for the hospital as a charity. 13 
an institution from the treasuries of the State and city, whose donors do not know 
its nature, the Governors of the hospital, who do know it, if dying, would hardly 
yearn to demise a bequest to the institution, as a pious act that might make their 
coffins easier. 
Conversation with the Governors let out other causes of displeasure. I had 
dared to use the diamond point of my recording pen, where others might have 
preferred a castigation, in heeding an offense unbecoming a gentleman. But a 
greater blame than that existed. The head and front of all my offending was a 
pamphlet. I had opened the box of Pandora, and evils flew thick around. I had 
exercised my right of criticism. A thunderbolt was launched from a serene sky, 
charged to repletion with truth and sternest logic. Then there appeared a 
scathed and blasted man, with pretense hanging in shreds about him, trying to 
hide himself away from the light blazing wherever a pamphlet had fallen, and in 
banks, and counting-rooms, and parlors he sought shelter, bemoaning “ the 
ingratitude ” of his race, and appealing piteously for protection from the terrible 
“ persecution,” as he wailed the word, of a man who fearlessly proclaimed that, 
sometimes, ignorance in a physician is no less culpable than crime. 
Gentlemen who have not read my criticism of a scientific subject or who do 
not appreciate it, may attempt, in behalf of another, to punish me for exercising 
the right of judgment and of speaking professionally, but it will not seem judi- 
cious to the community to make the attempt in a manner that is unwarranted 
and unjust, and so compromising to themselves as the recent act of your Board. 
I am confident that the personal fairness of the individuals composing your 
Board, who favored this act, must sooner or later cause them regret for the 
inconsiderateness and precipitancy of their official conduct. But, whether this 
be so or not, the treatment of me becomes, in my estimation, of little moment, 
when I find myself sustained professionally, as I do, by medical gentlemen of 
distinction in different parts of the State, and in language stronger, too, than 
this, which I quote (using it with permission) from a letter received from Prof. 
Lewis A. Sayre, M. D., an eminent surgeon of New York city. He writes: 
Although an entire stranger, permit me, in the name of an insulted profession, 
to thank you for your masterly review of the reported case of the late lamented 
Prof. March. * * When I read the first report in the presence of several 
medical gentlemen, all of us expressed our astonishment that there was no one 
in Albany that could diagnosticate and treat so simple a case. * * There- 
fore, the necessity for your paper, for you all would certainly suffer in profes- 
sional reputation without the explanation which your most valuable paper so 
ably sets forth. Again thanking you for this timely and masterly defense of pro- 
fessional honor and capacity, and proper exposure of professional ignorance, 
I remain, &c.” 
All of which is respectfully submitted. 
CHARLES A. ROBERTSON, M. D. 
While preparing the present article for the press, the Buffalo 
Medical and Surgical Journal for February has been received, 
and in it appears an article by the editor, a stranger to Dr. 14 
Robertson, expressive of professional judgment concerning Dr. 
Robertson’s position as a critic, and the conduct of the board of 
hospital governors. The article (not italicized in the Journal) 
reads as follows: 
[Prom the Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.] 
ALBANY CITY HOSPITAL. 
It appears that Dr. Charles A. Robertson’s review of the published report of 
the case of Prof. March has obtained his dismissal from the (so called) Eye and 
Ear Department of the Albany City Hospital. The action of the Governors, so 
far as can be known from the present statement of facts, appears quite inconsistent 
with fairness and a true sense of their obligations to the 'public. Again, the public 
expose of the manner in which the Hospital obtained $4,000, appropriated by 
the State for the Eye and Ear Hospital, is not very complimentary to their own 
honesty. Dr. Robertson is too sharp and too much in the right to be treated 
unhandsomely with safety, and we believe his dismissal from the Hospital 
will return to torment liis pursuers. Certainly if he has been treated, as now 
appears, unfairly, it will only advance his own name and standing, and work 
irreparable injury to the Hospital and the men who have effected his removal. 15 
After the printing of the foregoing matter, a Boston medical 
periodical, containing the following article [without the italics], was 
received. The article is shortened hv omission of a few unessential 
parts: 
[From tiib Journal of the Gyn/ecological Society of Boston, for March, 18TO.] 
We had been much, interested in comparing Dr. Robertson’s criticism at the time 
it appeared with a certain semi-official MS. in our possession, from another hand, 
purporting to describe Dr. March’s last illness, decease and autopsy. The discrep- 
ancies were so obvious that we had anticipated the result that has now taken place. 
As Dr. It. was formerly a practising physician in this city, and has many friends 
among us, we do not hesitate to say a few words concerning his case. 
Five years ago, by the advice of his friends, Drs. Agnew, Bumstead and Hinton, 
Surgeons to the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, Dr. Robertson, a skilled oph- 
thalmologist, settled in Albany, with a view to special practice. Having secured 
the confidence of the profession arid the community, he succeeded in effecting the 
organization of the Albany Eye and Ear Infirmary and in obtaining funds for its 
maintenance, and, very properly, was elected its Surgeon. 
The Albany City Hospital, * * * disliking to see a professional charity 
existing in its vicinity independent of the sway of its masters, overtures were made 
for the juncture of the hospital and infirmary, upon certain conditions in favor of 
the latter, which it is alleged were never honorably carried out. 
A member of the College Faculty, who was also one of the hospital attendants, 
Dr Armsby, took occasion, it is said, to force a quarrel upon Dr. Robertson, and to lessen, 
so far as he might be able, his professional influence. It is charged that this was done 
in an underhanded and cowardly way. Meanwhile Dr. Alden March, the great sur- 
geon, died, being attended by Dr. Armsby, who immediately took pains to send by 
print and by letter to those more prominent in the profession, his version of the 
circumstances of the decease. 
Dr. Robertson, in the exercise of what he supposed a right, and on the ground of 
its scientific character, sharply criticised, in the New York Medical Journal, Dp. 
Armsby’s report, charging that Dr. March died from simple unrelieved retention of 
urine, and that stereographs of the late surgeon’s bladder, copies of which, sent by 
Dr. Armsby, are in the possession of the Gynaecological Society, of which Dr. 
March was an honorary member, were got up, so to speak, for the purpose of cover- 
ing a fatal error of judgment or neglect. 
For this unpardonable offense his opponent, a member of the College Faculty, 
while Dr. Robertson was simply a subordinate lecturer, has secured his temporary 
disgrace. 
What, however, had been the act of which Dr. Robertson was really guilty ? We 
quote from his terrible letter to the Governors of the Albany City Hospital, pub- 
lished in the Albany Argus for January 24-th: 
The head and front of all my offending was a pamphlet. I had opened the box 
of Pandora, and evils flew thick around. I had exercised my right of criticism. A 
thunderbolt was launched from the clear sky, charged to repletion with truth and 
sternest logic. Then there appeared a scathed and blasted man, with pretense 
hanging in shreds about him, trying to hide himself away from the light, blazing 
wherever a pamphlet had fallen ; and in banks, and counting-rooms, and parlors, he 
sought shelter, bemoaning the ingratitude of his race, and appealing piteously for 
protection from the terrible “ persecution,” as he wailed the word, of a man who fear- 
lessly proclaimed that sometimes ignorance in a physician is no less culpable than 
crime /” 
The final result is not yet. An Albany medical friend, uncommitted to either 
side of the deplorable controversy, writes us that penance “ of this kind seems 
poorly calculated to do Dr. Robertson any harm. He has many powerful friends, 
whom his review seems to have called up. Tue result of it all will probably be a 
reconstruction of the College Faculty, or a total break up, and then a second 
school.” The following letter from Professor E. II. Parker, M. I)., at one 
time President of the New York State Medical Society, is deemed 
valliable in the issne that has been raised by tlte history of the bad 
treatment of Dr. March’s disease : 
Poughkeepsie, March 29,1870. 
Dear Doctor Robertson : 
McNaugli ton’s “reply” to your paper concerning Dr. March’s case has just been 
received and read by me. I cannot say that I am surprised at it, but its whole tone 
and spirit shock me. Before now, however, I have seen men of some position in the 
profession attempting to use their supposed influence to throw dust into peoples’ eyes. 
What course you will pursue, I of course, cannot judge, but if I did not know some 
of the other surgeons in Albany to be men of ability, I should advise the profession 
in that city to try to persuade some one to take up his residence there who is com- 
petent to pass a catheter in a difficult case, and to judge correctly whether or no a 
bladder is distended when the symptoms are not perfectly simple. “ Detention of 
urine ” is good. 
Yours truly, 
E. II. PARKER. 
Dr. C. A. Robertson.