RATIONAL  MEDICINE
THOMSONIANISM.
            AN ESSAY


                 ON



Rational bs. Routine atii Jlwk fruttice of IPriciw,


      REVIEWED BY DR. M. S. THOMSON,


                 a n n     - /



           VINDICATED

                    / /      ,  ^
        BY J. DICKSON &yiTH, M. D, ^?/ JJpt
OF M A C 0 N, G A.
<fW
TrtEGRAPir STEAM PRINTING HOUSE.


        1859. 
I
t 
EXPLANATION.
  The  following  paper  was published in the April No.  of the
"Oglethorpe Medical  and  Surgical Journal," of Savannah.  A
portion of this article having been taken by the "Christian Index"
for the health department of its columns,  brought  out the  article
of review and criticism from Dr. Thomson, which will be found in
these pages.   This "rejoinder," as indicated by its  own address,
was written for the "Index," but that paper refusing to publish, it
was sent to the "Georgia Citizen" and published  as an advertise-
ment, at the usual rates of charge.
  Being rather surprised at  such an attack, made upon me through
the columns of a public paper, whose readers had nat seen my ar-
ticle, I determined  to place it  before them, that  they might see
what they were criticising in their reading, from the pen of M. S.
Thomson, M. D.  Accordingly, I sent the Journal containing the
original article,  to the "Citizen," with the following exordium pre-
fixed :                                       •

Dr. Andrews :

  Dear Sir.—Much to my amusement,  I notice in your issue of the 17th inst.,
a "rejoinder,"  by M. S. Thomson, M. D., to an extract made by the "Christian
Index," from an article of mine published in the April number of the "Oglethorpe
Medical and Surgical Journal," of Savannah.
  In reply, and as  an all-sufficient defence of my article from the uncalled  for
sparrings of Dr. xhomson, 1 submit the  article entire, as it originally appeared
in the Journal, and ask you to spread it before your readers.  Let them read and
"ventilate" it for themselves.
  The prominent errors that I pointed out—as proceeding from unguardedness
and a want of proper vigilance on the part of my Allopathic  brethren—are  de-
fended by Dr. Thomson as the true principles—the fundamental doctrines of Bo-
tanic Medicine.  Routinism has no legitimate  existence  in Allopathic Medicine,
and it is candor—noble—in Dr. Thomson to  acknowledge the fact that it is an
essential integral in the structure  of the whole system of Botanic practice.
  I meant no fight  upon the Botanies.  I  intended not to combat error as a radi-
cal deject in another system, but to rebuke it as a wolfish intruder into our own
borders.  I had no knowledge of, or agency in the re-publication of "that por-
tion" of my article by the Christian Index; and that all may know what it is that
Dr. T. is cutting at so fiercely in his ex-parte "rejoinder," I hand you the  origi-
nal paper, which, in itself, contains all the  defence that I shall offer—through
this medium—to sustain its truth  and its proportions.  Respectfully,
                                             J. DICKSON SMITH. 
4
  Not being satisfied with  his first article of "rejoinder," Dr.
Thomson prepared another of similar length, and published it in
the same paper, and, I suppose, at the same rates of charge.  This
second article traveled over the same ground as the first, with this
addition, that  it was a  little more vituperative and abusive.  I
have, therefore, omitted  it in this paper.
  Concurring  with the  Doctor in the opinion that this subject
might be " ventilated" to public good, I have thought proper to
assist him in this undertaking; and while I design to explain, and
illustrate some of the main points  in my article on the subject of
' Rational Medicine,' I  desire to enlighten the popular mind on
the subject of Thomsonism, and to show it up in its  true light.  As
Dr. Thomson  has suggested the  contrast, I desire to extend the
analogy,  and  show  to, the public how perfectly nonsensical and
absurd is this new system—called Thomsonianism.
     Macon, July 4th, 1850. 
RATIONAL vs. ROUTINE AND BOOK-PRACTICE  OF
                       MEDICINE.
              BY J. DICKSON SMITH, M. D., MACON, GA.

  Medicine claims to be both a science and an  art, and the two
are so intimately blended, that it becomes difficult to define the
extent and the limit of each.  It is  denominated the " Healing
Art" but the simple term art, does not express the true character
and claims of medicine.   It possesses all the defining elements
necessary to constitute it a science, and the term  is as appropriate-
ly applied to medicine as  to any other system.   It is a regularly
organized system of general principles and legitimate deductionsr
from empirical facts and clinical observations.   The term art, as
applied to medicine, expresses only the mechanical administration
of a drug, or the ingenious application of a remedial agent. /Science
declares the reason and the philosophy for such appliances.
  In the practice of medicine, there is much that is empirical, but
it is not all mere experiment and speculation.  We claim to have
certain fundamental principles, as land-marks and beacon-lights,
to guide and  govern us; and  directed by these,  we shall be ena-
bled to steer our bark safely into port, and to give our patients the
entire benefit of medicine, no matter under what circumstances, or
under what Sun we may  find them.  Guided by these beacon-
lights, we shall not be very liable to err, for they will point us to
a careful  consideration of all the modifying circumstances con-
nected with the treatment of diseases.  Are we combating disease
in Georgia, or on the banks of the Mississippi?  In the swamp, or
on the mountain-top ?  Amongst the equatorial heats, or the Sibe-
rian snows?   These land-marks will guide us  aright in  every
instance.
  With the ingenuity and the tact of art, and the engineering pow-
er of science and philosophy, we shall be prepared to encounter
disease anywhere, and to effect all the good that medicine, in its
wisdom, proposes.
  Away, then, with the doctrine of sectional medicine, which re-
quires the medical student to study where he intends to practice
his profession.   If the human system and its physiology be the
same everywhere ;  if the prominent features of disease are similar, 
0
and the settled principles of treatment founded upon the same ba-
sis, how can it matter as to where—in  what  country or school—
the physician has been educated, so that he has been taught aright?
If his mind has been properly and  thoroughly imbued with the
great principles of Therapeutics, and if his knowledge of the theory
of medicine has been familiarized  and confirmed  by practice, the
medical man will be competent, with due care and precaution, suc-
cessfully to practice medicine anywhere ;  and to dispense the ben-
efits of his art, as well to the Arab as  to the American ; and as
well to the rice-farm slave, as to the mountain  herdsman.
  But is it true, it may be asked, that all practitioners follow and
practice physic according to those  established principles ? or, is
there not  much  of habit and  routine in our profession ?  I am
well satisfied that the latter is true, and equally well convinced
that this is one of the great sources of failure in medical  practice
in accomplishing its desired object.  In obedience to the fact that
there are generally present certain leading indications of treatment
in certain  classes of disease, the doctor unconsciously gets into the
habit of advising  a  particular round of remedies in every case
bearing the same name.  He contracts the habit of  prescribing for
names instead of for symptom*.  He directs his  remedies to cer-
tain diseases by name, disregarding the peculiar circumstances un-
der which these attacks have originated, and over-looking some
unaccustomed, yet very important feature they may present.  Is
the case diagnosed Pleurisy.-  the lancet must be used.   Does he
call it Rheumatism ? colchicum is forthwith written in the prescrip-
tion.  Is  it inflammation ?  mercury is the great anti-phlogistic,
and must be employed.  No allowance is made for idiosyncrasy,
for malignant tendency of disease, or for any other circumstance.
Their  names are recognized,  and the  remedy known.   The em-
ployment of certain  drugs, and certain recipes s« »on becomes a
confirmed habit, and every patient affected  with  the prevailing
disease of the neighborhood, irrespective of complication and the
various modifying circumstances of each, meets the same treatment.
This is empirical vs. scientific practice,  and cannot claim  that suc-
cess which is expected of medicine.  The practitioner  ought to
study each individual case, applying the resources  of his art with
care and discretion—according to-all the modifying circumstances
surrounding his patient. In this consists the science and philoso-
phy of medicine.
   Another prevalent error  of practitioners, and  particularly of
those just entering the arena  of practice, is  the habit of looking 
7
to their text-books, and relying upon them in the treatment of dis-
ease.   Instead  of prescribing  for, and combating existing symp-
toms—excited  by  peculiarities and various complications—they
seek to give definite names to every case, and to institute that
course of treatment marked out in the books for that particular
disease.  This course is impracticable from the very fact of the di-
versified complication of disease.   In many cases we cannot pro-
nounce any definite name.   The symptoms are heterogeneous.
Perhaps we cannot decide which of several diseases predominate.
Here again we see the necessity of looking to symptoms and not
to names, for it is often easier to prescribe for a case, than to name
it.  Every practitioner must be  his  own doctor.   He must cast
aside his books, and act upon his own judgment in the case.  Have
we general principles ? we must apply them according to our own
judgment,  from the circumstances around us.   The method of
treatment instituted  in one case, may not be applicable to another
case, of the same name and character.  So many modifying cir-
cumstances are perpetually occuring, that we cannot decide that
any two cases are precisely identical.
   This inclination and  attempt to practice medicine from books, is
an unfortunate  one.  It leads the  practitioner into many perplexi-
ties and to constant disappointment.  The success of his practice
will not be commensurate with his  laudable desires.  The practi-
tioner can better appreciate the exact condition of his patient, and
the precise character of his disease, than can the author of his booh
who has not seen the  case.   Upon careful clinical investigation
must depend our success in treating disease, for it  is only in this
way that we can ufind out what the matter is," and this we must
do ^before  we can safely go to  work to cure it."  Book practice of
medicine, then, is to be condemned because of its impracticability;
and because it is less expedient than clinical tact and clinical study.
   There is still another habit in the practice of medicine  that is
objectionable and exceedingly devastating in its consequences and
tendency.  I allude to  routinism.   It has been said that more per-
sons have fallen victims by the hand  of routine practitioners of
medicine, than  have  ever fallen by the sword.  Whether  this be
true or not, it is undeniable that such  persons are unsafe practi-
tioners, and are not to be trusted with the  management of multi-
form disease. This habit consists in indulging a regular round of
prescriptions for almost every case they  meet—not seeking  by
close investigation, to discriminate nicely  between  diseases, and
between symptoms.  They incline too much to the maxim of the 
8
Botanies, that all diseases originate from the same exciting cause,
and consequently are amenable to the same course of treatment —
The Botanies were, at one time, criminally guilty of this kind of
routinism.   They had one "'course of medicine" through which
they carried their patients, and the same "course" was repeated
again and again, till the patient was cured or dead.  But "medi-
cal reform" has of late seized upon them, and they have  measur-
ably abandoned  this heroic routine.
  In this same manner the lancet has been  most mischievously
abused, and this error is still  operative in  some sections.  The
routine practice was to bleed,  and accordingly in almost  every
case, the lancet -was popped in, regardless of the character of the
pulse, the strength of the patient,  or the Typhoid tendency of the
disease ;  and many  a  case has thus been bled down, irrecover-
ably.  But happily, this practice, also, has measurably yielded to
the persuasions of healthful reform, and this instrument is  now
used comparatively  seldom.  Through  the same kind of habit,
many of our important remedies have been employed as hobbies,
and made the instruments of mischief.
  In the investigation and management of disease, it is not  only
necessary to attend to symptoms,  and to  combat the most promi-
nent as they occur, but to inquire into the organ that is  suffering,
and to ascertain the precise nature of the existing lesion.  The
practitioner must discriminate narrowly, for the same symptom
may be present in diseases  of very different  character.   But the
importance of looking to these points is not recognized by  the
routinist.   He disregards the peculiar and special features of the
case, adhering to his accustomed  habit.   He knows what particu-
lar drug, or recipe he has used  in previous cases,  and at random
he employs the same.
   Cotemporary with his  efforts to modify the  symptoms, and to
give comfort to the patient, the  practitioner should inquire into
the causes of the malady he is  treating.   This may be all impor-
tant, for, like the  "thorn in the flesh," the disease may not yield
until the offending cause has been removed.  It is important, in
every morbid condition,  to seek out the cause in order to remove
it, if practicable.  The maxim  '•Tolle  causam cesjsat efectus," is
often, though not invariably, true.  This consideration is gener-
ally overlooked or neglected by the routinist.  He contents him-
self with simply combatting the phenomena present,  caring noth-
ing for the source of the  disease, or its ultimate tendency.
  We have thus reviewed several practical errors prevalent in  the 
9
Medical profession, and which, we consider, fruitful sources ofun-
Bound practice.  They all need to be rebuked and sedulously guar-
ded against.   In indulging them we violate the plain principles of
Therapeutics,  and turn aside from those scientific land-marks that
are to guide and govern us in the cure of disease, and in  the alle-
viation of human suffering.  If medicine be a science then  let us
use it as a science, giving our patients the entire benefit proposed.
  The error we pointed  out in reference to book practice, is main-
ly indulged by the younger practitioners, who  are  just launching
out into the field of practice.   While students,  they read and com-
prehended the books, flattering themselves with the  idea that ev-
erything would be equally plain and intelligible at  the bed-side.—
But in this they are doomed to disappointment. They do not find
things exactly as described, for no two cases are met with, which
are precisely identical.  Books are mainly useful by way  of imbu-
ing their minds with a knowledge of the great general principles
of medicine ;  but when they reach the clinical  room, they are left
to draw upon their own heads as text books. They will there find
demand for the exercise of all  their reasoning powers.
  There is an easy, and almost natural inclination, on the part of
practitioners of medicine, to become routinists, and consequently
we find the older physicians mostly addicted to this error, and most
amenable to this charge. Insidiously habit entwines itself around
their actions, and unconsciously they yield  to its dominion.  The
unlimited confidence they acquire in their own tact for perceiving
and recognizing at a glace, the precise nature and character of the
case,  destroys in their own minds the necessity of thorough investi-
gation, as well as the great practical importance of scrutiny,  and
nice discrimination.
  Medical men should  be always  on  the  alert, looking out for
some new feature of disease, and ever taxing their ingenuity, and
drawing upon the resources of science and its philosophy for expe-
dients adequate to the emergencies.  In the midst of all our  ex-
perience and  imagined skill, we must  not lose the guidance of
reason and philosophy.   We cannot safely depart from those land-
marks, the general principles of Therapeutics and the established
laws of medical science.
  The profession of medicine  is honorabje, beneficent,  noble!—
Freed from the shackles of  empiricism, and the  paralyzing  res-
traint of habit and routine, and guided  by  the engineering power
and skill of science and reason, it  is to be hailed as  a welcome re-
prieve, the greatest boon from  the mind  of man to man's estate.— 
10
Let us then, as the votaries of so noble a calling, guard well its sa-
cred portals.  Let us seek to block up these avenues of mal-prac-
tice by thoroughly imbuing our minds with a  knowledge of the
fundamental principles of medical science, and bestirring ourselves
to that energy and ambition that will not be  content  with  doing
less for our confiding patients than the vast domain of medicine
proposes.   Its design is benevolent, and  its application, in  order
that its contemplated benefits shall  be realized, must be  vigilant
and faithful.  Thus fortified and guided by  all the lights  which
illumine the Profession in its present advanced and advancing con-
dition, the practitioner will be enabled to shine  as the well-inform
edand rational physician, happy in his own resources and a bles-
sing to the community whose confidence is reposed in him.
DR.  THOMSON'S  REJOINDER.
  Dk. Andrews:—Dear Sir—The following strictures were sent as indicated,
to the Christian Index, but for reasons that I presume were satisfactory  to*the
Editor, were not published.  I have no fault to find with their  evident desire to
avoid making their religious paper the medium of a medical controversy, but I
would suggest as the best means of carrying out that policy, that in future they
select articles of a less controversial character for their health department.
  Thinking that the subject now broached, might be ventilated with advantage
to the public interest, and being unwilling that such an imputation as "criminal
ity" on the part of the "Botanies" should be passed in silence, even though con-
joined with a like charge against Allopathists, I hand  you the article, and ask
for  it a place in your independent sheet.
To  the  Editor  of tiie Christian Index :
  Dear Sir—In the health department of your issue of the 26th of April last,
you extract from the Oglethorpe Medical and Surgical Journal, the "argument''
of an article by J. Dickson  Smith, M. D., of .Macon, <ia., which  contains state-
ments reflecting, with unnecessary severity, on a class of Practitioners, many of
whom doubtless are patrons of your paper, and would hardly expect an attack
through that medium.  Nevertheless, if your object be to place before your read-
ers  medical as well as theological truth, all complaint on that score will be obvi-
ated by the opening of your columns to a moderate, good tempered and respect-
ful rejoinder.
  We have no objection to urge against the exposition  of the errors of his pro-
fessional brethren, so boldly undertaken by Dr. Smith ; that he has a  perfect
right to do, and we are bound to say that he does it most scathingly, but we have
a decided objection to his placing us upon the same footing with Allopathic "rou-
tinists," as we have no desire for any such association, and would be pleased to
have the opportunity of placing ourselves  right before  your readers if you  will
indulge  us in a few comments on that portion of his article to  which you have
given currency.
  In order to a proper understanding of the position  occupied by "Botanies,"
it may be necessary to state some of the points  in which we seem to be agreed 
11
in reference to Allopathy itself—and first as to the character of its practices :—
Dr. Smith says that in that "there is much that is empirical:'   That is candid
to begin with, and far be it from us to cast a doubt upon the  statement, for we
are convinced that it is truth itself.  We also subscribe cheerfully to  his  next
proposition: "If the human system and its Physiology be the same every where,
if the prominent features of diseases are similar, and the settled  principles of
treatment founded upon the same basis ; how can it matter as to where the phy-
sician has been educated, so that he has been taught aright ?
  The italics are ours, and we think that makes all the difference.   Upon the
first part of the proposition is our system founded theoretically, and it is the on-
ly system that gives those principles practical vitality, as will be shown.
  After stating the proposition, Dr. Smith enquires,  "Is  it true  that all  prac-
titioners follow and practice physic according to these established principles, or
is there not much of habit and routine  in our profession ?"   In reply to  which,
he says "the latter is true," and "is the great source  of failure in medical prac-
tice," and we are far from casting the shadow of a doubt upon the statement so
far as it refers to his own system.
  He further says that Doctors contract the habit of prescribing for names in-
stead of symptoms, which leads them into all  sorts of error, and instances the
mere naming of Pleurisy, Rheumatism and Inflammation, as leading directly to
the employment of the  "lancet," ''colchicum," and "mercury," without  regard
to the peculiar circumstances which have  originated  the attacks.  This  he de-
signates as ^empirical,1'' but seems himself oblivious of the fact that a simple cold
will  produce all these, and what will cure the cold, will cure either of those seem-
ingly dissimilar conditions!   This, however, by the way; his idea of what con-
stitutes "the science and philosophy of Medicine," consists of the study of each
individual case by each  individual practitioner,  according to all the  modifying
circumstances surrounding each individual patient, and then "applying the re-
sources of his  art" with such "care and discretion" as he may possess,  having
first "castaside his text books!''  as unworthy of consultation,  and constituted
himself, as Dr. S. expresses it, "his own doctor."  We don't quote  this as one
of the coincidence of views, far from it, but to show that what he calls the "sci-
ence and philosophy of medicine,"  is just what  we would oil empiricism  run
wild, in which each man pursues his own  course,  having no text books, and no
two  of them thinking alike!   Having  entered this "Dedalian labyrinth," just see
how the doctor gropes around.   He says :  "In many  cases we cannot pronounce
any  definite  name ;  the symptoms are heterogeneous, and perhaps we cannot
decide which of several diseases  predominate."
  Tn this  dilemma he gets but poor comfort from what is understood as "treat-
ment," for he says "the method of treatment instituted in one case may not be
applicable in another case of the same name and character, and the same symp-
toms may be present in  diseases  of very different character." "So many modi-
fying circumstances are perpetually occurring, that we cannot decide  that any
two  cases are precisely identical!"  This state of things would present a fine
chance for scientific display, on account of the certainty (?) with which all would
prescribe.
  Nosology recognizes more than fifteen hundred diseases or shades of disease,
each shade of difference requiring a different  remedy.  In the materia  medica
there are recognized about three thousand  different remedies that  it is said are
each applicable to  a particular shade of  disease ;  now, scientific^) medicine re-
quires that the practitioner shall not only know the particular shade of difference
in each case, but he must apply the particular remedy adapted to that difference.
Will any one acquainted with the evolutions of numbers take these figures, and
the number of Allopathic practitioners even in Georgia, and say what the chan-
ces would be for any two of them to agree  ouce  in a  million of cases ?  And  if
each man is to be "his own doctor," to cast aside his books, and act upon his own
idea  of the case, what becomes of the science 1  Where is the certainly without 
12
 which there can be no science, for science is ascertained tkith, and the inference
 is fair, that it must be wanting in that system, no two  of whose practitioners
 hardly ever agree, either as to the disease or the remedy, though they may have
 read the same books, heard the same lectures, and in other respects  had their
 medical instruction identical ; and the same want perhaps explains the fact that
 what has been regarded as quackery in one age,  is accepted  as scientific truth
 in the next, and in the next is thrown aside, as the most arrant and destructive
 humbug.
   Disease, according to the Doctor's estimate, must be some dancing  devil or
 Frenchman's flea, the "symptoms" of whose presence must be "discriminated
 very narrow!y," in order that the most prominent may be combatted as they oc-
 cur," by giving just the proper remedy at the proper time, devolving  upon the
 physician the double duty of watching the remedy as well as the disease, in such
 a way as to enable him above all things, to avoid another habit which Dr. Smith
 says his brethren have got into, which is "objectionable  and exceedingly devas-
 tating in its consequences,"  viz:  "routinism,"  in  giving a description of which
 his candor is greatly in excess of his prudence,  especially when in referring to
 bleeding,  he gives an instance.   He says : "The routine practice  was to bleed,
 and accordingly, in almost every case, the lancet was  popped in,  regardless of
 the character of the pulse, the strength of the patient, or the typhoid tendency of
 the disease, and many a case has thus been bled down irrecoverably !  That is,
 bled to death!   And nobody that recollects the common practice of twenty years
 ago—that then was considered scientific, and for denouncing which medical refor-
 mers of that day were called  quacks—will gainsay that proposition,  and but few
 will doubt his correctness when he says that, happily this practice has yielded to
 the persuasions (demonstrations) of healthful reform,  and this instrument is now
 used comparatively seldom.   Dr. Smith is no doubt right again  when he says :
 "Through the same kind of habit many of our important remedies have been em-
 ployed as hobbies, and made the instruments of mischief, having been, without
 regard to the causes of the malady, given at  random!"  That is saying a good
 deal for the system the world has so long been trusting for life and health,  and
 considering the fact that the "important remedies" belonging  to that school, are
 confessedly the deadliest poisons, and that Mercury and Morphia have been the
 principal  ''hobbies,'1'' the admission that they have been given  at "random"  de-
 prives the statement that the results have been exceedingly devastating, of the
 slightest exaggeration, and we honor Dr. Smith for the manliness with which he
 has come forward to confess it.
  We think, however, that he is mistaken in attributing all the "mischief to
 "routinism," for there could  be no harm in giving a safe medicine repeatedly, if:
 the exigence of  the case required it,  to effect the object in view, and if the phy- '
 sician knows just what is needed, and knows at the same time that the remedy!
 he prescribes will effect that result, just as certainly and indubitably as food.
 relieves hunger, or water thirst, it would be "criminal" in him  if he did not
 persevere in its use, and repeat it until the object be attained in the one case,
just  as it is in the other, and if the process be somewhat ton line, it will corre-
 spond none the less certainly with all the other operations of nature, of which
 scientific men have any knowledge, and the fact that so much trembling ivatch-
fulness is necessary to what Dr. Smith thinks a proper method of administering
 Allopathic remedies, proves that certainly of result cannot be one of their attri-
 butes, and we would  advise that those articles which require such close ".atch-
 ing to keep them from doing "mischief," be shunned, as  men are who require to
 be subjected to  the same process.  The practitioner  that  cannot calculate the
 effect of his remedies with almost mathematical precision, and is not able at the
 same time to apply them on scientific principles to the case in  hand, is compelled
 to grope in the dark, and must be very careful and watchful, or he will, if usin-
 poison, do  "mischief;" and hence the application of the term,.scientific  to such
 proceedings would be a  misnomer, and it would  only require the disna-al of
 "text books," and the constituting  of  "every man  his own Doctor," to ::.ake
 them the very essence of empiricism  and quintessence of an ache ni. 
13
   The "thorn in the flesh" instanced by the Doctor is an apt illustration, for in
all cases of disease "the offending cause must be removed."  How is that done
in the case of the thorn ?   If removed at once the disturbance is slight, and no
diseased condition of consequence follows; if not removed, a certain action is set
up called inflammation, which  some doctors might try to subdue by bleeding,
perhaps, but as that is evidently intended for the removal of the  thorn, others
would, more scientifically,  encourage and assist in  such a way as  to attain  the
desired object as soon as possible;  heat and moisture would be employed in  the
shape of poultices to the part, and a  little internal stimulus might be used to
give vigor to the circulation, and though the practice might be "routine," and
would have to be repeated and repeated still, yet the practitioner would not have
a doubt of his success, even from the first, and  if there  be sufficient energy in
the system he must succeed, there cannot be a doubt about it, because the prac-
tice is based upon laws, just as certain as those that sent Newton's apple to  the
ground or that maintain the worlds in space.-   But there might be a thousand
thorns or obstructions in the flesh, and a high degree of inflammation  indeed
would be got up for their removal,  but would that change the principle ? The
aim of nature, so to speak,  would be the same in both instances; bleeding in  the
first case might only partially thwart  her efforts, in the last it would be fatal,
because by it the forces are destroyed that  are  brought to bear upon them  for
their removal, but if assistance is rendered by applying heat and moisture exter-'
nally, and the internal energies are increased, not destroyed,  the result is again
assured, unless both the energies and assistance be overtaxed.   Well, if thorns
by the thousand can be thus removed, may  not smaller obstructions by the mil-
lion,  giving rise to the state called fever, be  also removed on the same principle,
and if your agents are well chosen,  by the same means; and if we can by stimu-
lation and relaxation applied both internally and externally, control fever and
inflammation" invariably, and have our agents  few and well chosen,  would not
that be reducing medicine to a science in fact, and casting to the winds the crude
and heterogeneous notions of bye-gone ages, that  have  hitherto  had, without
meriting it, the name?  Well, if fever and inflammation be thus controlable by
agents that act in perfect  harmony with the laws of life, neither poisoning the
system nor withdrawing the blood, in what consists the "criminality" of their
frequent repetition 'i  Does not the criminality rather  consist  in the closing of
the eyes to such light as Medical Reform par excellence has thrown upon these
subjects, and with wilful and inveterate prejudice  clinging to obsolete  notions
"that confessedly lead the practitioner into many perplexities and constant dis-
appointment, and result in consequences exceedingly devastating?"
   But the doctor thinks routine practice can never be scientific.  If so, medicine
is the only exception, for every thing scientific  in other respects is routine, and
we maintain  that nothing really scientific can  be  otherwise!   The  laws that
govern the chemical affinities are so unvarying that the absence of a single con-
dition is fatal to the  desired result.   The operations of mathematics are all rou-
tine, and  the surveyor of to-day can track his predecessor of a hundred years,
by due observance of them; the astronomer of to-day, by the  routine calcula-
tions  of mathematical science, can foretell the eclipses of the sun and moon, the
planetary transits, the distances of the heavenly bodies, &c. &c, just as well as
Newton could; and  by the same routine calculations, the mariner can navigate
his ship  over the trackless ocean with as much certainty as  if he had finger
posts  and mile stones all the way!  But let either of these despise the routinism
to which science subjects him, and he, like the allopathist, soon finds himself at
sea without rudder or compass,  the sport of every wind, till brought up sud-
denly on some hidden rock, when with "exceeding devastation" all around  he
is able to appreciate the state of those who give  "particular drugs  at  random."
  But routinism does not stop here, it is evidenced in all the physiological laws
that govern the animal economy; eating and drinking, secretion and  excretion
are always going the same rounds from day to day  throughout the'generations
of men, and will so continue, and if so, why should it be supposed that no rou- 
14
tine laws control disease, making it subject to a routine "course" of treatment,
that may be repeated with the best effects, should the first effort fail in produc-
ing the desired result.
  A "course" of medicine that may thus be relied on, the  "Botanies' have
adopted and practised with such success that the most ignorant of them have
cured diseases that the most learned Allopathists have abandoned as incurable,
and though efforts have been made repeatedly to trace some  "mischief and de-
vastation" to that treatment, not a case has occurred in which it could be sub-
statiated.  There is, therefore, nothing "criminal in the routinism of the Botanic
course."  That there is in the Allopatic, we have the evidence of Dr. Smith and
a host of others  to prove, and we trust that  henceforth its advocates will speak
of it with that modesty that becomes their acknowledged position, and, though
misery loves company, refrain from their attempts  to drag down to their own
level that of the "Botanies."   Respectfully,      M. S.  THOMSON,  M. D.


                          ■-------------«•»■——-


                VINDICATION.
           GENERAL REMARKS—OBJECT IN WRITING.

  As an humble votary of Medical  Science, and feeling a deep
and all-absorbing interest in the Profession to which I have attach-
ed myself, and to the service of which I desire to consecrate my
life—I feel  under obligation to labor in its behalf; to contribute
my mite towards its advancement as a beneficent science, in order
that its avowed object, and benevolent design may be realized to
the world;  and that good and not evil  may result from  its delib-
erations.—I say that I feel obligated to  do whatever I may be
able—not only to promote the  interest and accelerate the progress
of the Profession of my choice, and to maintain  for it the confi-
dence of the public—but to assist in the promulgation  of sound
and conservative doctrines, the influence and power of which are
to be so sensibly felt by  those seeking its benefits.
  Actuated by motives of this sort, and having from the close obser-
vation of ten years in the Practice—noticed what I considered mis-
chievous errors, indulged by the force of habit, by some of our me-
dical brethren, I was induced to suggest my convictions in a plain
and simple way, in order that those of us at fault might be more
guarded upon these points, and  bestir ourselves  to greater dili-
gence  in acquiring a correct knowledge of the true  principles of
Medicine.   Pursuant to this object, I prepared and published the
paper that has called  forth this lengthy review from Dr.  Thomson
—making it—not a necessity, but a pleasant pastime—to main- 
15
tain and defend its truths.   As it was my privilege to write, I ex-
ercised it—hoping that an humble practical suggestion might not
be unacceptable to  the  profession.  In  this way  has  the  noble
structure—Medical Science—been reared to  its present gigantic
stature.  Little  by little, small accessions  here and  there.   A
thought expressed, a fact communicated, a suggestion made. Thus
have the materials been collected, out of which has been organized
the science of medicine.
   My only object, then, was to contribute my mite to the general
good of the profession; to assist in maintaining the soundness and
purity of medicine, by  combatting errors that  have stealthily crept
into our borders from  unguardedness on  the  part of some of  our
practitioners, or from a want of proper understanding of the fun-'
damental doctrines—the correct principles upon which our system
is founded.  Allopathy has its weak disciples,  its ignorant and
unfaithful executives.  Has not every profession?  Are there not
those  in every  association  of  men  who  are unfaithful to their
vows,  and who betray the trusts committed to them ?  Alas! we
have heard of but one single exception—Thomsonianism !!  "We
are told that its disciples "cure" the  "incurable," and that  the
most ignorant of their number have never been known to do the
"least mischief"!  " 0 mirabile dictu"!  I am sorry that  I can-
not say as  much for the Allopathic system, for although I believe
it sound and conservative, yet I will not contend that our remedies
always "cure" and  that  "some  mischief" is  not occasionally
done by the careless and unfaithful of our number.   But more of
this anon.
   My object just  here is to state the design and intention of  my
article.  It was simply to incite my professional brethren to great
zeal and watchfulness, in order to the avoidance of certain ille-
gitimate errors, and to remind them  of  the necessity of  being
guided—in all  our administrations—by the general principles of
Therapeutics.  That we must seek to imbue our minds with  a tho- \
rough  knowledge of  these general principles, and that in the sick '
room we must apply them  according to our own judgment from
the varied  modifying circumstances  surrounding the patient.  I '
had no disposition, I am sure, to make war with the Tbomsonians,
and only alluded to that system of practice for the purpose of for-
cibly illustrating the point  I was am tending for, and now feel
obliged to Dr. Thomson for admitting the legality of the illustra-
tion.   I have certainly as little unkind feeling towards the Thoni-
sonian brethren as 1 have confidence and love for their system of 
16
 practice. I have more esteem for them as men, than appreciation
 as practitioners.  The truth is, I do not like their system, nor do
 I consider it sound and conservative.  For myself  I would much
 prefer the unaided efforts of nature—the great " ris medicatrix
 naturae"—to that arbitrary "routinev to which Thomsonianism
 subjects its patients.
   As Dr. Thomson has attacked my article, and through it, Allo-
 pathy generally, and as he has thrown wide the doors and  given
 us a clear insight into the  "Sanctum Sanctorum " of his pet sys-
 tem, I shall take the liberty—during the vindication of my own
 propositions—of inquiring into some of its hidden mysteries, and
 magical powers; and to show up Thomsonianism in its true light,
 as reflected through M. S. Thomson, M. 1)., and as recorded in the
 Thomsonian books.

                     MKDIC1XK A SC1UXCE.
   My article sets out with the proposition that medicine is a "sci-
 ence" as well as an "art,*" and this  proposition is thoroughly sus-
, tainable.  What, then, are the elements and conditions  necessary
 tor constituting medicine a science ?  In the first place  we  must
I have a collection of facts, or leading truths  relating to  medicine ;
 and in the second place these facts or truths must be arranged in
 such systematic order, as that general principles may legitimate-
 ly be deduced therefrom.   Now, the requisite  accumulation of
 facts we have. AVe have a knowledge of Anatomy and Physiology
 of the human system—in health and in disease. We have a knowl-
 edge of certain medicines producing certain  effects upon the sys-
 tem, no  matter how introduced—many of these articles producing
 the same general effect, and giving rise to a classification of rem-
 edies.  These several classes of medicines act in different ways up-
 on the system, and through different media—some upon the ner-
 vous system, some upon the circulatory system, some upon the ab-
 sorbents, &c.  Some  purge, some vomit; some stimulate and oth-
 ers depress the vital actions. We have a vast array of  empirical
 facts in relation to the efficacy of certain drugs in the cure of cer-
 tain diseases—denominated empirical, because ascertained by ex-
 periment—known by experience.  We have  also  the  benefit of
 very many special facts, bearing upon the subject of diseases and
 remedies, obtained by careful clinical observation.   We are famil-
 iar with many circumstances that modify therapeutic indications
 —such as age, sex, original conformation, habit, climate,  profes-
 sion and way of life,  causes, seat, period, 6cc, of diseases. 
17
  Thus we have  a vast collection of facts  accumulated during
many centuries.   These facts have been so arranged and classified
as to give rise to certain legitimate deductions—to the  establish-
ment of certain general Therapeutic principles.  For instance, we
know that a certain medicine, or a certain class of medicines, when
applied in the treatment of a disease—under ordinary circumstan-
ces—will produce certain effects ; but we also know that the same
remedy applied in a different disease, or in the same  disease, un-
der a different train of circumstances, will  produce different re-
sults.  We know that certain drugs, given in  certain  quantities,
will produce effects different from those produced by  the  same
drugs—in larger or smaller quanties.  We also know that the me-
chanism, or modus operandi of medicines vary in  the production
of the same general results—thus giving occasion to the special se-
lection of one article over another in the same general class.
  From these and many synonymous facts, we have established
principles.  These are our "fundamental principles"  in  Thera-
peutics ;  the "landmarks" and "beacon lights" that are to guide
and govern us in the treatment of disease.   Thus, in making up
our opinion that " medicineis a science," we have shown the pre-
requisite—knowledge—the medical facts or leading  truths; and
we have exhibited them, arranged and classified in such systemat-
ic order, as to give rise to  certain legitimate deductions, and the
establishment of certain general principles.   These, I  aver, con-
stitute all the requisite conditions and qualifications necessary for
the constituting of medicine a science.

                          ALLOPATHY.

  This is the popular name given to the  ordinary mode  or regular
practice of medicine.   It is the true orthodox system of practice,
founded upon, as its basis, a perfect knowledge of the Anatomy of
the human system.  It constitutes the true eclectic system of med-
icine, having alone,, the right to select its remedies from any and
every source in nature.  It purports to be governed by  principles,
such as we have already alluded to—in  all its operations  in the
cure of disease.
  But Dr. Thomson has a  "decided objection" to being associated
in any sort of view with the Allopathists. He would not be placed
on  "the same footing with Allopathic  routinists," and  wishes to
defend Thomsonian medicine from such "imputations," and "to
2 
18
place themselves right" upon that question.  It will be seen here-
after where he does place himself and his Thomsonian system.
  It is very natural that  the doctor should wish no association
with Allopathy, for there is no more harmony or affinity existing
between the leading doctrines of Thomsonianism  and Allopathy.
than  there is between oil and water.   But we will allow the doc-
tor to defend himself, and this he has attempted,  at some length,
in the article before us.  Let us see whether it will stand the test
of logic; or whether—like the "bouse  built upon the sand"—its
foundations  may not begin to crumble when the storm of  truth
beats upon it.

                        " LMPIRTCAL."
  Dr. Thomson gives me credit for candor in saying that much of
the practice of medicine is "empirical"  and thinks  that the  re-
mark is "truth itself."  So I thought and so I contend.   The great
mass of medical facts bas been given us through experience.  They
have been ascertained by experiment and research. Man's natural
instinct was not strong enough to reveal to him specifics and  reme-
dies for all bis diseases.  He was, consequently, left to  chance,
and  to  the power of his own intellect for relief; and  fortunate-
ly, through these resources, many  valuable remedies have  been
discovered to him.  These are the facts that I denominated empi-
rical, and I glory in the thought that time-honored Allopathy has
been  founded upon such established facts.
  But there is another sense in which this expression that—"much
of the practice of medicine is empirical," is true ;  and this, doubt-
less, is the sense of the word  "empirical," that Dr. Thomson taken,
and to which he so insinuatingly grants his concurrence.   In  treat-
ing diseases we sometimes meet with very anomalous cases, the
prominent features of which are widely at variance with the usu-
ual appearances.   The circumstances surrounding the patient are
unusual, and as we propose to be  guided, always, by principle?—
looking to all the modifying circumstances—we are frequently left
to draw upon our suggestive faculties for means to meet the exi-
gency of the case.  We, perhaps, cannot  call to mind any definite
authority that will bear directly upon the  case in hand, or any
remedy that will fulfill all the existing indications.  Consequently
the practitioner—following his own bead—uses remedies or com-
binations of remedies that he has never used before, or never read
of in any of bis books.  This is an  experiment—an empirical rem-
edy. 
19
  Again he may meet with an  obstinate case, that has defied the
usual remedies, and the patient is still  unrelieved.   Is not  the
practitioner left to experiment ?  Ought he not to try  something
else, rather than leave his  suffering patient to his  agony ?   This
new treatment, tbei , is empirical treatment.  May not such new
remedies—suggested by the common sense, reason  and tact of the
attendant—be preferable to the inert  repetition ad infinitum of
the "same routine course," which has been pursued  to no good ef-
fect I  I contend that a man who has not his mind  sufficiently im-
bued with  a knowledge  of  the  fundamental truths and leading
principles in medicine; and who has not sufficient tact and inge-
nuity, in cases of emergency,  to draw adequately upon the resour-
ces of his  own mind  for the necessary  expedients—though  the
means resorted to may be empirical—is not worthy of a high place
in his Profession, and totally unworthy the confidence of the pa-
tient.   The doctor should have a head  of his own, and although it
is the safer policy, in the main, to keep  near the  land marks of
science, yet be should not feel totally prohibited from all innova-
tions.

                     SECTIONAL MEDICINE.

   As an illustration of the proposition that we have "certain fun-
damental principles," and that in  practice we should be guided by
them as "landmarks and beacon lights," I incidentally mentioned
that it did not matter where—"in what  country or climate" we
were practicing our profession,  so we adhered to, and were gov-
erned by,  the e settled principles of medical science, for they
would point us to a careful consideration of all the modifying cir-
cumstances connected with the  treatment of disease.  Climate and
locality, the character and habits of the people, and the  peculiar
features of the prevailing disease—must be considered  important
circumstances ; and the practitioner must weigh them well before
he presumes to treat  disease in any locality.  This proposition,
then, is true only in a comparative  and  restricted sense;  for it
cannot be denied that the resident physician, for the time, has  an
advantage over the itinerant, in that he is already familiar with
these practically important peculiarities.   This fact, however, does
not affect the truth of the general proposition—that "it does not
matter where the doctor has  been  educated—in what  country or
school—for he will find occasion to study certain peculiar facts and
features of disease in  every particular locality.  If a student of 
30
Georgia studies medicine in Augusta or Savannah, and locates him-
self in a distant county—or it may be in an adjoining county in his
own State—he will find it necessary to study the diseases preva-
lent in that particular place  or neighborhood.
  Dr. Thomson seems to agree with me in this position, because
it suits the Thomsonian motto that they can cure disease wherever
they can find plenty of "herbs ;" and he  particularly concurs in
the suggestion that be must be "taught aright."  This is all im-
portant, and I have already pointed out to the reader what I  con-
sidered the indispensable elements of Medical Education.   That
the practitioner should be familiar with medicine as a science—that
his mind should be properly and thoroughly imbued with a knowl-
edge of the great principles  of therapeutics ; and that he must be
well versed in the habit of vigilance, and the exercising of "care
and precaution," that none of the important modifying circum-
stances should escape his observation in the sick room.
  This is the kind of education,  and this the degree of proficiency
and practical admonition that Allopathy enjoins upon its follow-
ers, in order that physic may accomplish its desired object.   But
I suppose that Dr. Thomson would  have us all study in the  "Re-
form" College, and learn the practical operations of "steam and Lo-
belia."
  Dr. Thomson, in this connexion, makes the following quotation
from my article, and most wofully perverts its true meaning.  "If
the human system and its Physiology be the same every where ; if
the prominent features of diseases are similar, and the settled prin-
ciples of treatment founded upon the same basis, how can it mat-
ter as to where the physician has been educated," &c.
  Let the reader notice this paragraph in its proper connexion, and
he will understand it as I meant it.  I intended simply to declare
the fact that the human system was the same everywhere; and
that the principles of therapeutic treatment were the same in every
country and climate.  But Dr. Thomson seems to understand me
to 6ay that the prominent features of all  diseases were the same
and that they were all amenable to the same treatment.  To this
proposition  he "cheerfully subscribes," and says that upon  it
Thomsonian practice is "founded theoretically," and is the "only
system that gives practical vitality" to such  "principles."  Here,
then, we have revealed to us this point of doctrine in the Thomso-
nian system—that all  diseases are alike, and all cured by the same
remedies. 
21
           ERRORS OF PRACTICE —NOT OF PRECEPT.

  Having reviewed some of the essential  qualifications enjoined
by our regular system of Practice, I have taken occasion to suggest
that " all of our practitioners do not follow and practice Physic
according to these established principles," but that some of them
prove recreant to the trusts committed to  them—falling slothfully
into mischievous habits.  Many of these contracted habits are not
recognized at all by the orthodoxy of our system, and for the fail-
ure and mischief resulting from whose practice our system of prac-
tice is not to be held responsible.   Allopathy itself is sanative;
but its wholesome precepts, we fear, are  not, invariably, carried
out in practice.  Dr.  Thomson intimates that no such  unfaithful-
ness is found in  the Thomsonian ranks, for be says,that "though
efforts have been made repeatedly to trace some 'mischief to the
Thomsonian treatment, not a case has occurred in which it could
be  substantiated."    JSTow, if this be true, how shameful! that
Thomsonian practitioners should be so wofully slandered, and be-
lied ! For it has been said many a time that they  have "killed
their patients."
  I heartily wish that our sheep-fold—like Dr. Thomson's—could
be  kept free from all  " wolfish intruders."  My  own professional
brethren will excuse  me, I know, for rebuking  such illegitimate
practices, by holding them up to view, in order that those of us
who may be at fault, may "take due notice  and govern ourselves
accordingly." We love our  profession, and desire to fulfill its ob-
ligations to the public; and all we may be able to do towards the
correction of error, in every form and shape, will be so  much con-
tributed to the good of the confiding invalid;  and  so much  to-
wards maintaining that exalted position the Medical profession has
attained in the confidence of the world.   Allopathy  has survived
the assaults of all heretical opposition, and it stands to-day as a
mountain, rearing its  majestic summit through the pestiferous fogs
of  heresy and petty isms, far  into the etherial regions of truth.  It
stands firm, because "grounded in the lore of experience, and the
wisdom of research in all science ;"  and its lofty aspirations should
be  sustained by commensurate zeal and  watchfulness on the part
of its votaries.
       PRESCRIBING  FOR NAMES, INSTEAD  OF SYMPTOMS.

  This is pointed out in my article,  as a habit carelessly indulged
by  some of our number, and one not authorized by the true tenets 

 of Allopathy.  The reader is referred to my remarks on that sub-
 ject.  I only desire to say a few things  by way of illustrating the
 points there submitted.   I insist upon it, as the true doctrine in
 the practice of medicine, that we are to prescribe for  the case be-
fore us.  We are not to prescribe for Pleurisy, for Kbeumatism,
 for Inflammation ; but we are to prescribe for the case before us.
 If, by all our tact in  clinical investigation, we are utterly unable to
 make out a clear, satisfactory and definite diagnosis—as is some-
 times the case—then we must prescribe for the symptoms, endeav-
 oring to meet the indications present, waiting for farther develop-
 ments, that we  may ascertain the true nature and character of the
 disease.  But if, by careful study and nice discrimination of symp-
 toms present, we are enabled to name the disease, then we are to
 —prescribe for the sy?nptoms—still.
   Is it Pleurisy *—let us not bleed the patient, simply because the
 lancet is a recognized remedy in the  treatment of Pleurisy ;  but
 let us look closely at  all the features and circumstances connected
 with this particular cast of Pleurisy !  Is the attack of recent ori-
 gin? are the symptoms violent ?  the pulse full and bounding? the
 patient of  vigorous constitution ?  Does depletion seem to be the
 indication,  and are there no facts or features  that would seem to
 contra-indicate its adoption  as a remedy in the case/  Then let
 the lancet  be used.   But  in order to determine these last ques-
 tions, let us inquire after the age, sex, habits, temperament, occu-
 pation, idiosyncracy, causes of attack, extent of the  disease, the
 climate, particular locality,  type of prevailing  disease, compli-
 cation  with other diseases,  kc.  In this way,  we  may  discov-
 er some existing feature that  will  forbid the  use of the lancet,
 and call for the employment of other remedies in the  treatment of
 the case.  Various are the circumstances modifying the treatment
 of cases of  Pleurisy, as well as other  diseases;  and the general
 principles  of Therapeutics teach us the extent of influence to be
 exerted by these special circumstances.  I repeat then, that " the
 practitioner ought to study each individual case, applying the re-
 sources of his  art, with care and discretion—according to all the
 modifying  circumstances surrounding  his patient,"  for  "in this
 consists the science and philosophy  of medicine."
   Rheumatism, in like  manner, is  to  be subjected  to the same
 kind of discretion, and not dosed indiscriminately with colchicum
 because that may happen to be  a general remedy in that disease.
 The cases of Rheumatism  are to be  treated as they specially pre- 
23
sent themselves.  The  same may be said of every other disease.
They cannot claim certain remedies,  simply because  they are
known by certain names.
   Calomel possesses antiphlogistic properties.   Is it therefore to
be given in every case of Inflammation?  By no means!  There
are many other articles that are likewise antiphlogistic, and one
or another of this class of remedies may be used, according to its
peculiar applicability to the case at hand.  There may be compli-
cating symptoms forbidding the use of  calomel; or there may ex-
ist, with the patient, some idiosyncracy, rendering  it highly in-
applicable.   Opium is a valuable soporific, but there  are many
persons upon wThom it  has the opposite effect.   Quinine is a spe-
cific, almost, for malarious fever; and yet, very many persons can-
not take it, because it injuriously affects the head.
   Thus we see the great inexpediency of attempting to advise for
names; and we farther see the  imperious necessity, of  directing
treatment to the symptoms and  circumstances of  the case.  Ra-
tional medicine demands this; sound Medical Philosophy demands
it; and every principle of  common sense and reason concurs in
its approval.
   But let  us notice the consistency  of Thomsonian Philosophy
upon this  subject.  Dr. Thompson says that in the mention of
Pleurisy, Rheumatism  and Inflammation, I seem "oblivious of
the fact that a single cold will produce all these, and what will cure
cold, will  cure either of those  seemingly dissimilar conditions."
That is: as Pleurisy is  produced by cold, whatever will  cure cold
w,ill enre Pleurisy.  As cold is the exciting cause of Rheumatism
therefore whatever will cure cold, will  cure Rheumatism.   And
as Inflammation also results from  cold, ergo the remedy for cold
is the remedy for Inflammation.  As they all origmoXe from cold,
so they are all cured by the remedy for cold.  All diseases, there-
fore, that are produced  by one common cause, are to be cured by
one common remedy—no matter the special features of the case,
and the intensity of the symptoms ; no matter the diversity of the
patients and their constitutions; no matter the contrariety of cir-
cumstances and modifying influences; no matter the number and
character of complications.  None of these things are important
—much less essential—to successful treatment of disease.  They
have not the weight of a feather.  All the practitioner wants to
know, according to Dr. Thomson's premises, is the name and cause
of the disease.  The treatment is easy,  and the result will follow 
24
"just as certain and indubitably as food relieves hunger, or water
thirst/"  O! wonderful—mugical—Thomsonianism !!
  Dr. Thomson says that " cold is the  cause of  Inflammation."
Well, Inflammation being a  multiform disease — comprising a
large part of all the diseases of the human system—it follows that
cold is the exciting cause of  most, perhaps a majority, of all dis-
eases ; and, consequently, a medicine that will cure cold, "will cure
most diseases.   If these deductions be  correct, they amount, almost,
to an admission, on the part of Dr. Thomson, of what I stated in
reference to Thomsonism, "that all  diseases originate from the
same exciting cause, and, consequently, are amenable to the same
course of treatment."   Here we have a re affirmation of the orig-
inal theory and doctrine of Samuel Thomson.   This theory, then,
afforded me a  very apt and forcible illustration  of " routine prac-
tice," and as it was for that purpose  alone that  I  mentioned it, I
think that the  Doctor ought to excuse the liberty taken.
  The characteristic of Thomsonian therapeutic science seems  to
consist in its extreme simplicity.  There is a sameness or oneness
about it that is entirely disproportionate to the phenomenal chang-
es of organic life.   One cause of disease, one general remedy, and
one certain, "invariable" result; "the most ignorant Thomsonian
curing diseases that the most learned  Allopath has  abandoned  as
incurable."  No wonder that steam doctors never err from  their
true faith and practice.  No wonder that no "mischief or devasta-
tion" has ever resulted from the inadvertency of the "most igno-
rant" of their number.  The whole theory and  practice is  quick
learned.  The lesson is "short  and sweet." It is so plain that the
"way-faring man may read as he runs."  The  whole  system is
"one routine."  The "regular course of medicine"—which the read-
er will learn by heart before I close this paper—is universally ap-
plicable in all  diseases.
   But Dr. Thomson is somewhat consistent after all, for he practi-
ces much of what he teaches.  Discarding the Doctrine of  "each
individual practitioner," studying "each individual case," and "ap-
plying the resources of his art" "with care and discretion," "accor-
ding to all the modifying circumstances surrounding each individ-
ual case," he adheres to his creed, that there is one  cause and one
remedy, and absolutely proposes to "treat cases at  a distance with-
out seeing the patient," and "on sound physiological principles."
Now this is in perfect accordance with  Thomsonian  theory,  and
I honor the doctor for his consistency  in practicing  what he preach-
es ; for there is no more necessity of his seeing  the patient,  than
there is of the gunner seeing the bird he intends to kill. 
25
   According to Dr. Thomson's theory this "dancing  devil," or
"Frenchman's flea," can be fired upon just as well at  a distance,
and without seeing him, as to get near enough to put his finger on
him.   All he wants to know is that a "flea" has been about, and as
there are certain known agents that will kill fleas, the  indication
is at once clear and unmistakable.   Disregarding the extent of
damage done by this disturber, caring nothing for the  erythema,
the itching sensation, or the  amount of sympathetic  excitement
resulting from his  bite, he levels his  artillery at the offending fu-
gitive, believing that what will kill the flea will cure the  bite.—
Have we not this sentiment clearly embodied in this single expres-
sion of Dr. Thomson, that "a  single cold will  produce all  these,
and what will cure cold, will cure either of those seemingly dis-
similar conditions  V
   Now would it not be more  rational to let the "flea" go, and con-
tent ourselves with simply relieving the remaining "symptoms of
his presence ?"  This is an instance of what I meant by "prescrib-
ing for symptoms."
   But this doctrine of "rational medicine," that I have been en-
deavoring to illustrate to the reader,  that every practitioner must
exercise his own judgment in each particular case, &c.—is denoun-
ced by Dr. Thomson as  "empiricism run wild," because  he says
"each one pursues his own course, having no text  books and no
two of them thinking alike."   Well! this is only a characteristic
difference of opinion and practice between Allopathy  and  Thom-
sonism.  We recognize many distinct diseases produced by many
remote and exciting causes.  We know that the combined opera-
tor of several cotemporaneous causes will produce a  variety of
complication and manifestation of disease;  and that,  as we are
thus subjected to such varying external influences, we rarely meet
cases  of pure, uncomplicated  disease.  Consequently, as rational
advisers we are left to consider the symptoms in  the case  before
us, as they manifest a certain disease, or the co-existence of sever-
al diseases combined.   We here see the great importance of a fa-
miliar acquaintance with the varied manifestions of disease.  We
see the necessity of the doctor  having a head and judgment  of his
own ; and we also  see the importance of much shrewdness  and
acumen on the part of the practitioner, in order to  a correct  ap-
prehension of the true nature  and character of the affection, or to
a due appreciation of the respective complicating symptoms.  If
we correctly mark  the leading features in the case, and bring to 
                            2(5

bear our knowledge of general Therapeutic principles, wo shall be
able to agree in the main in the adoption of such courses of  treat-
ment as shall bring about the same general results, and fulfill  the
existing indication.  We have at our discretion many  means  for
the accomplishment of the same  common ends,  and we are to  use
these means discriminatingly according to special  circumstances
andparlieular indications.
  Dr. Thomson renders it as an  objection, that  "no two of us hard-
ly ever agree."  Admit that in  specialities we  do not;  but if in
the recognition of the prominent features of the case, and in  the
leading indications to be fulfilled we  do agree, what matters it
whether we concur exactly in the use of the same  drugs for pro-
ducing the same desired effect ?  If we agree in the decision that
'.//icsits is the indication of cure,  and one of us advises Ipecac, and
another Lobelia, are we not still essentially agreed 1 for both these
articles vomit.  If we desire to produce purgation and respective-
ly  advise Calocynth and May Apple, are we  not  agreed  practi-
cally, to all intents and purposes i   These  are  but  petty differen-
ces, and cannot subject us to the unqualified charge "that we do
not agree."
  I admit that there is a much greater probability of Thomsonians
agreeing precisely, from  the fact that there is so little diversity in
the system.  There is no possibility of disagreeing.  "Disease is
an unit,'1 says Prof. Worthy, "and the physician can never be  at a
loss how to proceed, nor at a stand in the choice of remedies."  The
course to be pursued is as well deliue ated, as the track for the loco-
motive.  Samuel Thomson, (the Father of the steam system,) says
that "heat is life, and cold death," and that if  we are  "careful to
always keep the determining powers to the surface, by keeping
the inward heat above the outward,  or the fountain above  the
stream, all will be safe."   Now this theory and practice  is exceed-
ingly simple—contained within a nutshell ; and a  man  must be a
great gump that cannot learn it by heart, and follow it even with
his eyes shut.  There is no possible chance for mistake in diagno-
 sis, for "names are arbitrary things," says Samuel Thomson ; and
 in treatment they cannot err, for the same "routine" is "universal-
ly applicable."  There is one beaten track to be followed and from
it there is no excuse that any should stray.
   The rational adviser seeks to "find out what the  matter is,"
and the well-informed modern Allopathist can  generally make out
 a clear and definite diagnosis.  Modern research with  the  micro- 
27
  scope, and extensive clinical and post-mortem investigation  have
  thrown much light upon this branch of medicine, during the  last
  fifteen years.  The pathology of almost all the important diseases
  is correctly known by the modern student of medicine, and they
  may be recognized during life, when  normal and uncomplicated,
  by their respective pathognomonic symptoms. Even in compli-
  cated cases, by careful investigation,  the various existing lesions
  may be pointed out with considerable accuracy.  The shrewd and
  discriminating explorer of disease, with the helps of modern  sci-
  ence, can almost compel the human  system  to unbosom and un-
  fold itself to his inquiring gaze.  It stands before him  almost as a
  transparent body, every organ and function displaying  its  abnor-
  mal and diseased condition.
    These are general truths.  We can recognize a great number of
  diseases with this degree of precision.  But  we have frequently
  to view disease through dark and mystic veils.  Their  phenome-
  na are unintelligible, their symptoms equivocal, and  no satisfac-
  tory diagnosis can be made out the first examination.   Is not this
  true ?   Every man of any experience will  admit  that  he finds
  anomalous cases, and is occasionally  puzzled to say exactly what
  the matter is.  He cannot always fix a name. I repeat it then, and.
  with no very great degree of humiliation either,  that,  "in many
  cases we cannot pronounce any definite name."  The forms and
  phases of disease differ as much as do men in their physiognomi-
  cal appearance ;  and there are mysteries in  disease and obscuri-
  ties in the sick room as well as in  all  nature.  I insist upon  it  as
  true, that our success in treating disease must depend greatly up-
  on correct Diagnosis.  To have clear views of treatment, we must
  have lucid conceptions of disease.   If the mind's eye is beclouded
  as to the true nature and extent of the morbid action, the hand of
  relief must grope in the dark.  We cannot always have such clear
  conceptions, and consequently much of our  failure in  treatment.
V' It is the most important and yet by far the most difficult step in  all
  the practice of medicine—to find out "what the matter is."  The
  practitioner cannot always succeed in this, but he should labor for
  it, sparing no effort or means of investigation.  We denounce  as
 , exceedingly reprehensible, the habit  or practice of dosing at ran-
  dom.  To say the least, no better success can be expected, than  by
  the sportsman, when killing game, he fires at random in the trees.
  Botanic medicine may not require  such  precision,  but Rational
  Medicixe certainly does. 
28
                   CERTAINTY OF EFFECT.

  Dr. Thomson finds  another flaw,  another contradiction  in the
denomination of Medicine a science, from  what he conceives an
admission on my part that there is no certainty in the operation
and effect of remedies.  Now I made no  such general admission,
but simply remarked that "the method of treatment instituted in
one case may not be applicable in another case of the same name
and character," and from the very fact, as I farther remarked, that
"so many modifying circumstances are perpetually occurring, that
we  cannot decide  that any two cases  are precisely  identical."—
This is an established fact, that we never do find two cases  exact-
ly alike, and  consequently we  do object to Routine treatment—to
the practice of giving every sick man, woman or child that we meet,
the same round of physic, and denounce it as a poisonous element
in any system of practice.   We would hurl it from our midst as an
adder from our door.
  We do not claim that medicine is an exact science, or that we
can calculate upon the same positive and  unvarying effect from
our remedies in all  cases, and under all circumstances, but we do,
in general terms,  claim that there  is "certainty" in medicine—
enough at least to justify us, in claiming for it the appellation—
Truth.   As  before stated, the science of medicine is founded up-
on knowledge as its basis.  That vast accumulation  of facts con-
stituting  the ground work of medical science,  is—knowledge, and
consequently is—certainty.
  Many  of  these  medical truths I have already enumerated.—
These are positive "certainties,"  but we cannot boast of universal
infallibility in the use of all the means we  employ in combatting
disease.  Our hearts  are sometimes saddened,  and our feelings
deeply humiliated, when we see our friends die around us, in spite
of our best directed efforts to save them.  And if Thomsonian re-
medies were, as Dr. Thomson claims, so "infallibly successful,"
the population of Georgia, to-day, would be thousands more than
it is ; for many fatal cases of disease have been registered as pa-
tients of "Lobelia and Steam."
  Has Dr.Thomson never lost a patient?  Can they all stand up
to-day and pronounce him blessed, and testify to the infallibility
of his all-healing  remedies ?  Can they (  But  if some of them
have died, Why did they die?  Why did not  the Dr. cure them
with his infallible remedies ?
  Where is the "immortal Thomson"—the progenitor of this im- 
29
maculate "Botanic System ?"   Gone to the Spirit land, where ma-
ny of his patients went before him!   He  lived for years after he
had declared that "His system and  remedies were about as near
perfection as it was possible for human power to bring them."—
He had a sound constitution, and one that resisted the "assaults of
his persecutors."  Wh/was it that his "infallible herbs" did not
serve him perpetually (  They grew indigenous all around him,
and he gathered and sold them by the quantity.
  Ah !  he forgot "to keep the invjard heat above the outward, and
the fountain above the stream," else perhaps, "all would have
been safe."  His No. 2, and  No. 6, must have "failed" him as
stimulants.   No. 3 could not "clear off the canker," and, alas! he
died!
   Where, then, are to be found the practical demonstrations of the
magical power, and infallible efficacy of the much  boasted Thom-
sonian medicines ?  Are they, indeed, so powerful ? so  universal-
ly applicable to all  conceivable states and conditions of disease?
Are they so reliably efficient in all  cases, and under all circum-
stances f  Do they really cure wTith all the certainty and exactness
that marks the fixed laws of gravitation ?  If so, these wtonderful
facts ought to be known ; and,  if so, they are known beyond the
walls of the Thomsonian College.
   This is a telegraphic age, and truth flies with electric speed.  It
does not require a half century to disseminate its particles through-
out the length  and breadth of the land.   This Thomsonian "fab-
ric," if so veritable,  ought to have swrept like a mighty  avalanche
all over this country.  The American people,  though excitable in
seizing upon every thing new, have  intellect to appreciate  truth,
and ingenuity to apply it to practical purposes.   Our people love
to live,  and they seize with avidity,  every plausible antidote for
disease. Why  then  have not these  "infallible specifics" for all
sorts of "infirmities" been heralded all over the inhabitable globe i
Why is not every  Journal and  family  paper clamorous in such
announcements i  More than fifty years have elapsed since Thom-
sonism  made its debut.  Sufficient attention has been given it to
incite thorough investigation.  It has been tried in the sick room ;
its claims have been "weighed in the balances" of popular opinion,
and the verdict is—"found wanting."
  But I repeat the inquiry—what and where are the evidences  of
its power, and its popularity?  Will the people of Macon testify ?
Can all the students who have been administered to by the learn- 
30
ed Faculty of the "Reform Medical College" of Macon, stand up
as living monuments to-day, of the infallible efficacy of Thomsoni-
an medicine ?  Can it be stated as a fact,  that the mass of intelli-
gent citizens of this beautiful city, prefer "steam and lobelia"?
and do they manifest such preference by calling upon Thomsonian
doctors?  From what source comes  thetacclamation—"ho ! all ye
who are afflicted, come to the fountain of steam medicine and be
healed '."  It is but the reverberation of its own "steam" whistle !
It issues alone  from  the lecture room of the  'Thomsonian College,'
and is re-iterated alone by those who expect to be paid for admin-
istering the "infallibles !"  Is it beard from any body else ?   Does
it come from any other source?   Do its own native bills resound
with praises of Thomsonism ?  Is it all the go in the land that gave
it birth '.  Strange for the reputation of this practice—it is least
popular where it is best known.   In the county of Monroe, where
the S. B. Medical College (now the Reform  Medical  College) was
first established, and where this new Thomson system was taught,
I presume, thoroughly, in the very midst of the citizens, no steam
doctor has been able to earn  his bread by his practice, for the last
ten years.  Thomsonism utterly perished out in the county.   The
citizens did not fancy  the practice,  and they starved it out.   Du-
ring my residence of seven years in the county, it could not pro-
duce a single practitioner of that order.  Not one wras to be found
in the county that once was head quarters of Thomsonism !
  Where, then, does it flourish i  In what land or country has it a
place in the  confidence of the people ?   It  is indeed passing
strange that such  "Truth" could so long "be kept bid under a
bushel."
  So much then  for the "certainty" of Thomsonian medicine, and
so much for the evidences of  its popular recognition.

                      BOOK PRACTICE.

  This is  pointed out in my article as a practice incompatible
with sound—rational medicine,  and "impracticable from the very
fact of the diversified complication of  disease."  Now, I bad as
soon have a routinist doctor me as the man who attempts to  refer
and compare every  case he  has to some described disease in the
books, and to  copy  his treatment from this  author.   Sometimes,
in chronic cases, we may do this; and frequently we may consult
books profitably.  But amidst  the excitement of the sick room,
and in  the face of the complicated  character of the case  before 
31
him—the practitioner must draw upon  the resources of his own
mind.   He must tax his own ingenuity for expedients.  He must
call into play his calculating and reasoning powers, keeping ever'/
in view general Therapeutic principles—as guiding "land marks."
He may recognize two or more separate and distinct diseases in
the case before  him.   The  usual remedies for  these diseases re-
spectively, may  be incompatible with each other—used in com-
bination. If he  attempts to treat both these diseases respectively,
in the same patient, at the same time, and with the  remedies di-
rected in the books for their respective cure, he may find that they
exert counteracting effects; or that the  remedy used for one  dis-
ease may exasperate  the symptoms of the other.  How, then, is
he to proceed?  Both diseases demand attention:—if bis mind be
well stored with facts, and properly impressed with correct views
of therapeutic principles, he can readily adjust a compromise—in
most instances—and  meet the combined indications.
   This is another illustration of what I  meant by treating symp/-
toms instead of names.  But Dr. Thomson thinks that a man can
lay no sort of claim to being "scientific" unless  he follows books
to the letter.  That there is no possible chance for doctors to agree
—in  any case—unless  they copy after the text books.  lie says
there can be no "certainty" in medicine, unless there is rigid ad-
herence to books.   Hear what he says on this subject:—"  And if
each man  is to  be 'his own doctor', to  cast aside his books,  and
act upon his own idea of the case, what becomes of the science?
Where is the certainty, without which there can be no "science?"
Now,  according to this logic any ten year old boy can practice
medicine "scientifically" (?)
   Now, I do object to Dr. Thomson judging our practitioners by
himself, or applying  the nonsensical logic of Thomsonism to our
time-honored sj'stem  that is "grounded in the lore of experience,
and the wisdom of research in all science." lie may copy his
routine  recipes  from  books, but / prefer the dictates of  reason.
The Thomsonian rule of action is as plain as straight along.  The
Routine Command is imperative, and  universally applicable to
"all disease."   How  can they disobey the  books, and be  "scien-
tific" Thomsonians ?
   I repeat the doctrine, in behalf of Allopathy, that we have no
use for books in the clinical room.  We do not discard books as
worthless, by any  means, for, as I have already said, they are use-
ful bv wray of "imbuing our minds with a knowledge of the fun- 
32
 damental principles of medical science."  The time and place for
 the perusal of books, is in the office, during study hours; and the
 great regret is that  they are not studied more.   By them we get
 possession of that rich treasure " the lore of experience," and the
 "wisdom of research," upon which is built that noble superstruc-
 ture, the modern Allopath  so much loves, and  from whose pre-
 mises he would expel  every unfaithful steward,  and drive out
 every " wolfish intruder."
   Physicians ought to read  much, for  in this way they get the
 benefit of the recorded experience of their predecessors; and post
 themselves in the recent changes in therapeutics, and in all mod-
* ern progress of medical science.   The physician should be a close
 student, not only perusing bis books, but studying prevailing dis-
 ease.  But I insist upon  it that the man who has not the judge-
 ment and tact to apply clinically his acquired knowledge, in spe-
 cial emergencies, without consultation with books, is not a relia-
 ble practitioner.  Comparatively few cases can be made to fit the
 books,  and  consequently he must devise  his  own "ways and
 means."  Book practice of  medicine, as a habit, is condemnable
 It is irrational and impracticable, Dr. Thomson's logic to the con-
 trary notwithstanding.
   The arbitrary policy of despotic governments is not to be taken
 as  the rule of action in independent republics; neither are the
 imperative edicts of despotic Thomsonism to be observed in our
 democratic system of medicine.  We  bow  submissively to no
 Samuel Thomson—making "vows of fidelity" to his  "great prin-
 ciples."  We would  spurn  as beneath notice, such imperative
 and  unconditional commands as our Thomsonian friends are sub-
 jected to, as in the following directions given by the " immortal
 Thomson":
                   General I£  fok Disp:ase.
   "Give a dose of No. 2, then  give  the tea of No. 3  to guard
 against canker, and add  some .No. 2 to overpower the cold; and
 when the second dose is given, add No. 1 to clear the stomach and
 promote perspiration."
                Recipe for Worm Complaints.
   " Give the composition powders, or No. 2, to warm the stomach,
 a tea of No. 3 to remove the canker, and the  bitters of either  of
 the articles described under No. 4 to correct the bile.  If they are
 bad carry them through  a "course of medicine,"  and give the
 bitters."
   These are some of Samuel Thomson's  specimen Recipes for the 
33
cure of disease.  The first  cures ''all  disease,"  and  the  second
cures "worm complaints."  This is Thomsonian  science, and this
a specimen of their philosophy.  Herein is the great  secret of
"steam doctors"  all "agreeing."  They look into the book,  and
there see plainly dotted down, in letters and  figures, every  step
that is to be taken "to cure disease."  These directions must  be
implicitly obeyed, and if the doctor has the  book, it does not mat-
ter about seeing  the patient at all, for the book tells how "to treat
cases at a distance without seeing the patient."  This was the an-
nouncement of M. S. Thomson, M. D., to the  public in the year
1840.
   Any other practice than this "routine course"  is denounced by
Dr. Thomson as  " empiricism and quintesence of quackery." Be
it so! I am glad that I am connected with  a fraternity  more lib-
eral, one that allows me freedom of thought and  choice of action.
The doctor thinks that I would go without my dinner rather than
be compelled to  take the  "same routine" of  good things  that I
dined upon yesterday; but my conscientiousness is more charita-
ble than that.  I love to eat, and I rejoice in the fact that I am
sojourning with  a family that allows me whatever food my appe-
tite demands; not compelling  me to  eat "vegetables," when I
need meat.  It is good for health to change  the  diet according to
appetite; and so it is equally important to the sick man  to vary
the medicine according to  the disease, and symptoms of disease.
   The boast of our democratic system of practice is that we have
a variety of medicinal agents for meeting the indications of dis-
ease, and that the practitioner  may select or compound them ac-
cording to the dictates of his own judgment.  We have no stereo-
type recipes, ox patented nostrums Nos. 1, 2,  3,  &c.  Ours is the
system that has  stood the  test of time ; keeping fully abreast  with
progress in all science;  and it will be our pride  as its bumble vo-
taries to "guard well its portals" by suppressing, if possible, all
illegitimate and erroneous practices that may spring up within our
borders.

                     ROUTINE PRACTICE.

   My remarks on this subject sufficiently vindicate themselves to
the minds of those who  properly appreciate my  design in making
them.  But Dr. Thomson, either wilfully, or for want of correct
comprehension, construes them into invectives against routinism
as a radical error in our system, instead of against the persons in-
                     3 
34
advertently indulging the habit.   It seems to me that ray mean-
ing could not be misunderstood by any  intelligent reader, for it
is emphatically stated "that such persons are unsafe practitioners,
and are not to be trusted with the management of multiform  dis-
ease."   Thus it may be seen that I sought to rebuke  mischievous
errors in persons, and not errors in the system, for  routinism—
such as I described—has no legitimate existence in the Allopath-
ic system.  We would remind our practitioners that  it is a dele-
terious element, and  should not be permitted to enter the  sick
room.   We would stimulate them to vigilance in  order that such
inadvertent habits be not  contracted,  for  they steal insidiously
upon us.  As co-workers in the sama benevolent cause, ought we
not to aid and assist—to caution and  advise each  other, that  we
may mutually escape from the breakers of error,  and  the  quick-
sands of indolence?   This was my intent.
  As the votaries of a vastly responsible, yet noble calling, we are
to be faithful to our trusts, guarding "our altars and our fires."—
Our system of treating disease purports to be a rational one,  and
ever profiting by experience, we are, nevertheless, not to lo-e  the
guidance of reason and medical philosophy.
  The  more thoroughly to impress this subject upon  the readers
of my article, lgave  some practical instances, and endeavored to
portray some of the operations of routinism in producing mischief.
For the benefit of those for whom the article was written, and for
Dr.Thomson's especial understanding—I will try and illustrate
these items more fully.
  I have already attempted—in a general  way—to  show what
knowledge, what proficiency of study, and what special qualifica-
tions are pre-requisite to entering upon the practical duties of  the
Medical profession.  I have also indicated what should be the de-
portment of the physician in the clinique, and the rule of action
by which he is to be governed, intimating that, perhaps, some  fail
to come up to the required—orthodox standard, becoming addic-
ted to improper habits. We are all liable.to such faults, but I have
known some who were particularly subject to these suggestions.—
I mean those who incline, habitually, to pursue a certain  stereo-
typed round of physicing, undeviatingly, from year to year,  and
irrespective of all clinical specialities.  In short, they fall  into  a
routine, akin to that of the Thomsonians, forgetting, not only  that
diseases are diversified in every  respect, but tfcat the character
and type of disease change  frequently.  The practice  of medi- 
35
cine is not what it was  twenty years ago, and it should be  the
boast of our practitioners to keep pace with its progress ;  noting
carefully every changing feature of disease, under the varied influ-
ence of times and circumstances; and adopting whatever of new
remedies are demonstrated by experience to be applicable to  the
indications of modern disease.  Very many  invaluable remedies
have been added to the Materia Medica of late, and, of course, the
inveterate routinist loses the benefits  of these new remedies.  Al-
lopathy has thrown off the old  restive motto and its watchword
now is  "onward and upward."  Many have been the recent chan-
ges in Therapeutics—occasioned by an  advanced knowledged of
diagnosis and Pathology.  The revelations of the microscope have
been wonderful, in these latter days—in demonstrating the  hu-
man system in health and in  disease; and  therapeutic changes
have been proportionate.  Let us not through slothful adherence
to routine habits be deprived of these inestimable benefits.   Let
us be up and on the alert, availing ourselves of the "early and lat-
ter rains."
   As an instance of routinism I mentioned the abuse of the lancet.
There  are practitioners now in Georgia, who, perhaps, use  the
lancet habitually, bleeding almost every patient they see.   This
is wrong, and rational therapeutics does not,  and never did recog-
nize it as sound practice.  We hold the lancet as a good remedy
in its place, and one for which  there is no good substitute  in the
fulfilment of certain indications ; but  we also charge  that  it  has
been abused.
   As an instance of this fact, I have  known doctors fall into  the
popular habit of bleeding every body immediately on the reception
of a fall, bruise, or  shock of  any kind.   Now, rational medicine
does not allow such treatment.  We say bleed  when there is ple-
thora and  active excitement, and stimulate when there is depres-
sion or prostration of the powers of life. A man falls from a height
and  is  stunned ; he is picked up in an insensible state; his surface
pallid and  his pulse feeble, or perhaps not perceptible at all. Now
the popular practice has been to bleed him,  but the rational indi-
cation is, to stimulate him, and excite reaction in his circulation.—
For this purpose we give him brandy, instead of bleeding him and
depressing still more the depressed vital energies.  Bleeding,  un-
der such circumstances,  has done mischief, but it never was ortho-
dox practice.  This is an instance of what I meant by "bleeding
down irrecoverably," and wrhicb Dr. Thomson  has pounced upon 
36
with such avidity, as being  Allopathic "science."   Such practice
never was justifiable, or worthy the reputation of a rational practi-
tioner.
  Another instance of the routine and abusive employment of the
lancet, is where it is used indiscriminately for every name of dis-
ease in which it has been suggested—in a general way—by authors,
forgetting that these directions in books are always conditional,
and that the discretion of the  practitioner must adopt or reject it
as a remedy in the particular case.  Most authors  concur in advi-
sing venesection in the treatment of Pneumonia, but this general
suggestion must be under ths guidance and restraint of therapeutic
principles.   To say then that practitioners are to blee,d every pa-
tient with Pneumonia, would  be the veriest quackery, and a gross
violation of the plain principles of Therapeutics.  The error, then,
is not fundamental, as Dr. Thomson would have it, but  the result
of mal-practice.  The fault is in the man and  not in the system.  If
patients have thus been "bled to  death," it  is just as much mal-
practice as if they had  died in  the "alarm stage" of Lobelia and
steam.
  The lancet is not now used with that frequency that it was twen-
ty years ago, and from  the very fact that the  character and type of
disease now prevailing  do not demand it.  The plegmasise are not
so actively  inflammatory, and there is a strong tendency to  a ty-
phoid form of disease,  which forbids the  lancet.   Following the
progressive spirit of science, and the indications of disease, practi-
tioners have measurably yielded the lancet in favor of cups, leech-
es,  and indirect depletion.
  In consonance with  the established fact that climate, and the
character and habits of the people,  influence the  type and mani-
festations of disease, the lancet may prove a valuable remedy in
treating the diseases of one country, when, during the same season,
it may not be admissible in another locality.  Possibly at this very
period, when we are using this instrument cautiously in this sec-
tion of Georgia, it may be the Trojan remedy for the prevalent dis-
ease in London—from the very fact that the  habits of that people
pre-dispose them to inflamation, and other diseases of the brain, in
which nothing is an adequate substitute for  the lancet.  The peo-
ple of London are  an intellectual people.  Their  minds are  more
actively employed than their bodies, and "they are exposed to in-
tense anxieties, occasioned by extensive speculations and reverses of
fortune, and are either in  a  state of considerable mental excite- 
37
ment or depression."  They are also exposed to the effects, Df hea>
vy  meals and sedentary habits—impeding the functions of the
stomach and bowels.  These  habits,  as before intimated, subject
them to cerebral inflammation, and render important the employ-
ment of the lancet.
  The French, from a very different train of habits,  living upon
stewed meats, salads, condiments, and drinking beer, acid wines,
&c, are more liable to gastro-enteric disease, which rarely demands
the lancet.  In our own Southern States, where the atmosphere is
malarious, and the climate hot and sultry, there is a greater ten-
dency to congestive and hepatic diseases, and the lancet is conse-
quently not so imperatively demanded as calomel and other emul-
gents.
  Thus we  maintain the consistency of our Therapeutics, and  re-
concile facts in relation to the employment or non-employment of
the lancet in different localities, among different people, and at
different periods of time. I have already stated that, with us, "this »
instrument is now used  comparatively seldom," and is owing to
several facts.   Physicians, in this day, are more thoroughly ac-
quainted  with medicine as a science,  and  they yield a listening«
ear to the dictates of reason.  The thraldom of popular prejudice '
has been  thrown aside.   A second reason for this reform, proceeds
from the change in the character and type  of disease—as already
intimated.  Instead of a higli grade of Bilious Remittent Fever,
we have Typhoid Fever.  Instead of Pneumonitis, we have Ty-
phoid Pneumonia.  A general Typhoid type of disease has substi-
tuted the Inflammatory.  Consequently, medical practitioners, un-
der the guidance of rationalism, and true medical philosophy, have
easily "yielded to the persuasions—"demonstrations"—of health-
ful reform."  We now seldom employ the lancet,  because seldom
indicated—under the same system of therapeutic  principles ; and
we have substituted—not the pseudo—"Medical Reform" pana-
ceas, but the efficient means of "Rational Medicine."
  But let us turn the leaf and read another version of the subject.
Dr. Thomson says, that  "routinism does exist in,  and form an  es-
sential and legitimate integral in the system of Thomsonian  prac-
tice," and that it "will  always be acknowledged  by him, with
pride, and pointed to with pleasure."   That is—that Thomsonism
consists wholly of routinism,  and that he glories in it as a system
that allows him always, under all circumstances,  to all patients,
and in all diseases, to pursue the same course, to give the  same
round of Physic (?) 
38
  Indeed I do not wonder that the Doctor takes pleasure in prac-
ticing such a system, for it is as easy as the English alphabet to a
boy who can already spell baker.  One of the distinguished Pro-
fessors of the Thomsonian College said that "the physician can ne-
ver be at a loss  how to proceed, nor at a  stand  in the choice of
medicines."  Their routine, then, seems to be  exceedingly plain
and simple, and it is no wonder that Dr. Thomson can "treat cases
at a distance without seeing the patient."
  Dr. Thomson, in illustrating his routine practice, brings up my
"thorn in the flesh," and shows how he would extract it—"scienti-
tifically."  He says that "heat and moisture would be employed in
the shape of poultices to the part, aud a "little  internal stimulus"
(No. 6) might be used to give vigor to the circulation, and "though
the practice might be routine," yet he would repeat it, and repeat
it still," and intimates that the thorn must come, because, he says,
"this practice is based upon law,  just as certain as those that sent
Newton's apple to the ground, or that maintain the worlds in
space."
  (Now why does not the Doctor take  a pair of forceps and ex-
tract the thorn at once?  That plan  would be more expeditious
than steaming it out.)   But the offending cause must be removed.
My Frenchman's flea must be killed or driven away, and I admire
the Doctor's indomitable  perseverance in  pursuing the offender,
but do not like his method of attack, or his weapons.
  Dr. Thomson, then,  attempts the removal of the "thorn in the
flesh'' by encouraging  and promoting the  inflammation that has
been excited in the part by the irritant; that is,  by exasperating
it to a  higher and still higher degree.  And he farther remarks,
that "if thorns  by the  thousand can  thus be  removed, may not
smaller obstructions by  the million, giving  rise  to  the state called
fever, be also  removed  on the same  principle, and by  the same
means ;"  and  that "fever and inflammation can invariably be con-
trolled by the same  means," applied in the  same way.  Now I
confess that this proposition seems rather paradoxical, but yet it is
strictly true to Thomsonism.  Let us review it.
   The "poultices and stimulus" will remove thorns in the flesh—
will promote inflammation-will subdue inflammation-will control
all sorts of fevers by removing "obstructions by the million," &c,
&c.   Well! well!  It  really turns out that Thomsonianism is a
"routine"; and  that routinism is an  "essential  integral"  in the
whole "fabric  ;" for the very "same agents" will remove all sorts
of obstructions, and fulfill all sorts of indications, just as "certain 
39
 and indubitably as food relieves hunger, or water thirst."  If the
 first "course" fails, the dose is repeated ;  knowing that success de-
 pends on  perseverance in the use of the "same means."  These
 are some of the principles—some of the "lights (?) of Medical Re-
 form—par excellence;" the whole system, in epitome, of Thomso-
 nian philosophy.  The reader is left to judge whether it is not as
 "clear as mud."
   Dr. Thomson remarks that these therapeutic "laws" of which I
 speak "are laws because they are routine," and  "that it is their
 unvarying character that makes them such," "for  without "rou-
 tineism" there can be no laws."   Now I cannot understand exact-
 ly in what sense Dr. T. uses the word routine.  I have attached to
 it, whenever I have used the word medically—the definition of
 Webster—("Any regular habit or practice not accommodated to
 circumstances.")  Well, in this sense, are the phenomena of life—
 the manifestations of health  and disease—to be considered rou-
 tine ? Are they fixed and unvarying ? or, are they not influenced
 by, or accommodated to circumstances ?   Is not the whole animal
 economy a fabric of circumstances ?  Does not its welfare depend
 upon contingencies ?  If not,  wherefore  the many  changes,  and
 varied conditions of life and health (  If these Hygienic laws are
 fixed and  unvarying, why do we not have uniform  health—the
 functions all acting  harmoniously, each performing its respective
 part in the manifestations of life ?  The child entering the world
 with  its organization complete, and subjected to such fixed routine
 laws, would certainly live on perpetually—without change or de-
 cay.   Why would it not'.
   Life is sustained by a long train of dependencies, and the main-
 tenance of perfect health must be due  to the uniform supply of
 these essential  elements and conditions.   Disease is the opposite
 —the great antagonist to health,  and, consequently, any casual
 disturbance, or deprivation of  the requisites to  health, must con-
 stitute disease.  So we see that disease  is the result of as many
 different casualties, as health and life of  contingencies; and that
 there cannot be any "fixed"—"unvarying"' laws controlling the
 one or the other.   They are the creatures of circumstances, and
any laws that have for their object the care of health or the cure
of disease—cannot be routine  in  the accepted sense of the term.
As health is conditional, and disease the result of incidental causes,
all hygienic and therapeutic laws  are only general—expressive
of their conditions, and not fixed and unvarying as are the laws of
natural science, to which Dr. Thomson applies the word routine. 
40
He says that they are routine because unvarying; but it is evident
—from  his own definition—that they are not routine, from the
very fact that they are conditional.
  The illustrations that the doctor gives in relation to chemical
affinities, mathematics, astronomy, Oca, are  correct.   As facts in
natural science—they are fixed and unvarying, and afford a per-
fect illustration  of what I understand and mean by "routinism."
But  in medicine we have  to deal with organic, and  not natural
science; the one being essentially different  from the other.  The
analogy will no  more hold than would a comparison between geo-
logy and animated nature.
  But if nothing short of this definition will  constitute scientific
"laws", in Dr. Thomson's eye, then we cannot claim to be Scien-
tific" either of us, for there is no such "fixedness" and unvarying
"immutability" in the human organism, or in Pathology and The-
rapeutics, as correspond with the fixed laws  of natural science.
But  whether Allopathic medicine be scientific or not, it is not
"routinism"  We demur to any such charge, and had rather be
called empirics than routinists, for in our view, the  latter consti-
tutes the least  reliable, and, by far, the most dangerous class of
empirics.  " The bold empiric is not half so dangerous as the half-
taught routinist."  Dr. Thomson may deny us—if he chooses—
the name scientific, but we will not allow him to cast  upon us the
reproach expressed in the anathema—"routine practitioner" We
had rather it would  be said  that "ours  is no system at all," than
that it consists of one stereotype routine, not to  be varied or "ac-
commodated to  circumstances."
  If all men lived in a paradisaical state, subsisting upon the same
simple food, breathing the  same pure air, engaged  in the same
healthful occupation, and subjected to the same  healthful influen-
ces, then we might have unvarying laws  in Hygiene and Thera-
peutics.  But alas!  we have been driven from this  Eden, and
"scattered to the four winds of heaven."  We climb the mountain
crags, and wade the boggy swamp.  We are " hewers  of stone
and drawers of  water."  We shiver in the arctic breezes and wel-
ter under the torrid heats.  We inhale the malarious and pestifer-
ous fogs and the arid desert air.  We live upon all sorts of food,
engage in all occupations, breathe all kinds of atmosphere, and
are subjected to innumerable poisonous and  disturbing influences.
There is no permanence or immutability in our present state. We
float in the direction of the passing breeze, and are truly the crea-
tures of circumstances; and the truth is we have  not, nor cannot 
4:1
have, such unvarying Hygienic and Therapeutic laws as Dr. Thom-
son mentions as constituting routine science.  Such defining ele-
ments and conditions are found only in the natural sciences, and
in that branch of human science (?) denominated—Thomsonianism.
We yield to them the boast of their  "pride and pleasure" routin-
ism, and send the dear little pet home, for it rightfully belongs to
their fold, and is a wolfish intruder prowling about in our borders.

           THE "SYSTEM OF GIVING  POISONS."

   Dr. Thomson denounces, be says, our "system and our reme-
dies", and seems not at all delicate in his style of denunciation.
He calls it the "system of giving poisons", the "school of dead-
liest poisons,"  &c.   That seems  to be the key upon which he
pitches all his abuse, and this  has been the tone and spirit of the
Thomsonians from the day the "steam" whistle first reverberated
over the bills of New England.   Much of their inspired (?) talentr
has gone to  waste in such invective  abuse, and their time, instead
of being employed in  the study  of Pathological Anatomy, (the
importance  of which they, at first, totally denied) and in the in-
vestigation of disease, has been spent  in conjuring up expressions
of slanderous vituperation; and not at all times have they observed
a scrupulous regard for truth.  The cry all the time  has been—
poison! poison!  Horrible effects of Mercury!  Minerals, 6cc.!—
From the fact that  some articles are used from the mineral  king-
dom, they have, therefore, daubed  us with the name "Mineral
practice."   To this name we do  not  answer, because—inexpres-
sive.  Thomsonians  would have the world believe that our Materia
Medica is made up  alone from the mineral kingdom, and that the
vegetable kingdom is not represented at all  in our catalogue of
remedies.  They would also leave the impression upon the ignor-
ant masses  of people, who know  no better, that all  minerals are
poisons, and that nothing like  a poison is known, or can be found
in the vegetable kingdom.  Is not this the ready conclusion of the
reader who  glances over the pages of  the Thomsonian Journals?
   What then are the facts in reference to these matters ?  Plain-
ly these ; our Materia Medica is comprised largely of vegetables.
They preponderate  over minerals in the  ratio of five to one.—
Many of the remaining articles are from the animal  kingdom.—
The number of minerals used, then, in our practice is  compara-
tively insignificant.  In the second  place—all  minerals  are not
poisonous.   And in the third place—the deadliest poisons  come 
42
from the vegetable kingdom.   These are facts that cannot be ques-
tioned.  But the Thomsonians, seeking a pretext for the "hue and
cry" "Reform Medicine," unblushingly state that they "give  no
poisons," because, forsooth, they use vegetable remedies altogeth-
er ; they give no minerals, but employ vegetable remedies; ergo—
they "give no poisons'"" for vegetables are not poisonous.
  Now, if they really know no better, all we have to say is, that
we pity their ignorance, for theykare more  completely  under its
thraldom than the beast that instinctively  avoids the  poisonous
plant.   But do they sincerely believe  that all vegetables are  in-
nocuous ?   If so, they are utterly incompetent  to teach  the "heal-
ing art," and equally unfit for administering  the healing draught.
It is a plain axiom in medicine, that an agent that cannot possibly
do harm, cannot do any good, for it must be  inert—devoid  of all
power.  One of the first lessons for the doctor  to learn is,  that his
remedies may kill instead of cure.   This idea,  then, inculcated by
the Thomsonians—that no vegetable remedies are poisonous,  is
calculated to do a  vast deal of mischief, for it sets aside everything
like care and caution, and begets habits of recklessness and abuse.
  Let us see whether any poisonous plants can be found, and then
let us inquire if none of these are used as medicines?   Where  is
the Upas tree ? the very  atmosphere around which  is deleterious
to life.  Where is Prussic acid ?  obtained from our domestic fruit
trees—the  very smell of which is death.  Have we not heard  of
Wooara—the war poison ? and Rhus  Toxicodendron?  Ignatius?
Sanguinaria ? Plytolacca? Papaver Somniferum ?  &c., most  of
which  are used in Thomsonian Practice.  Have the Thomsonians
not known from experience something of the narcotic—poisonous
properties of the  "Emetic Herb," (Lobelia ?) Does any one doubt
that Lobelia is poisonous ?  Listen to  the evidence of Prof. Wood,
one of the  ablest botanists and physicians  in the United States:
"its operation upon the system bears a close  resemblance  to to-
bacco.  Its effects in doses too large, or too  frequently repeated,
are extreme prostration, great anxiety and distress,  and ultimate-
ly death, preceded by convulsions."  Do our Thomsonian  friends
doubt  that these are  the  properties of Lobelia—correctly stated i
If they do I will confirm  every word by  the  evidence of Samuel
Thomson.   Go read  his description of the "alarm stage of Lobe-
lia," and see whether it is not a poison.  Here it is  from his own
"Guide to Health," (page 150,) "Continue giving the emetic herb
(Lobelia) until the stomach  is thoroughly cleansed; three doses 
43
 will generally be sufficient.  If the process has been conducted to
 the best advantage, the patient will soon after the commencement
 of the puking begin to run down, that is,  he will grow pale and
 weak, and continue to sink, as it were, until he  has not  strength
 to move, or even speak; his breathing may vary from  short  and
 soft to long and loud, and from the most free and easy, to the most
 laborious and jerking; in short, every symptom and" appearance,
 that can well be imagined calculated to alarm and terrify  those
 who are unacquainted with the true cause and effect. Sometimes,
 instead of the symptoms above described, the patient will appear
 to be much distressed, will tumble in every  direction, and talk in
 the most incoherent manner,  even to raving insanity."  This is
 the "alarm stage of Lobelia," and  may last, says  Thomson,  as
 long as "fifty hours," and that "language is totally inadequate  to
 describe the scene."
   Well, it must be alarming indeed, if language is so  "utterly in-
 adequate to describe it."
   Reader, would you like to be in this  "alarm stage" for fifty
 hours ?  Would you like to see your wife or your child in it, even
 for one hour f Would you not turn away from the "indescribable
 scene" with a heavy drawn sigh and give them up for dead?—
 Would you not feel that your wife or child had  been poisoned by
 this "emetic herb '."   And would you not feel that the  people
 were perhaps, justifiable in prosecuting Samuel Thomson, in 1809,
 for the death of Lovett to whom he had  administered Lobelia in
 this way ?  This is the herb that Thomsonians  give in place  of
 "mineral poisons."  They "eschew all poisons," and yet they ad-
 minister Lobelia on all occasions, repeating it even to the "alarm
 stage."  Lobelia! Yes, Lobelia was the "first food" of Thomson-
 ism—(says one of the Professors of the  Thomsonian College  of
 Macon)—the "origin  of its life," "the very  birth of the system,"
 "the boast and pride of its disciples."  Lobelia  enters largely in-
 to the "course of medicine," which is applicable to all  disease.
 It constitutes the Trojan remedy—the mighty Sampson of steam
 medicine.
  And yet they do not use poisons!  but innocent vegetable rem-
 edies.   Well, if Lobelia is not poisonous, it at least produces pre-
 cisely the same effect on the system as are  produced  by  other
poisons.  Its effects, as described by Samuel Thomson,  are exact-
ly identical with Prof. Wood's description  of the same  when
speaking of it as  a Narcotic Poison.   Can any one  follow  a pa-
tient through the alarm stage, as described by Thomson and not 
44
 see evidences of its  being powerfully narcotic  and  poisonous ?
 What means that paralysis of muscular power that prevents the
 patient from "moving" or "speaking ?"   What means that "long
 and loud,"  "most laborious  and jerking respiration ?"  What
 means that anxious—distressed manner ; that jactitation, incohe-
 rent speech and that "raving insanity ?"  Do they not bespeak a
 narcotic impression on the brain ?  Are they not  precisely the ef-
 fects of a narcotic poison?  So terrible are the effects of Lobelia,
 as given by the Thomsonians that  the practitioners themselves
 "become alarmed," says Samuel Thomson,  "and consternation
 seizes the minds of the relatives and friends of the patient." Well,
 I should think so, and should not wonder if they  became exceed-
 ingly "alarmed."  But Thomsonians do not give  poisons! but re-
 ly upon  "innocent remedies !!"  They "eschew mineral poisons,"
 but pour in the emetic herb, till they get sick of it, and find them-
 selves in a moribund condition.
  Now,  can the reader reconcile Thomsonian professions with
 Thomsonian practice?  They tell us they "give no poison,"  and
 yet we see that Lobelia is the hobby—the pet remedy— the mul-
 turn inparvo of Thomsonian practice ;  and we have the testimo-
 ny of the immortal Thomson himself, that the emetic herb is a
 violent narcotic poison.  He experimented and tried it thorough-
 ly, and records it as the result of his experience that "three doses"
 will produce the very alarming effects that he has above descri-
 bed ; and which are amply sufficient to satisfy the most scrupu-
 lous medical jurist that it is a poison. Do they not give evidence
 against themselves ?   Why not acknowledge to the truth of their
 own demonstrations—that the "emetic herb" is poisonous, in over
 quantities, and give the necessary caution to their practitioners
 to be careful in its use as a remedy, in order  that   "mischief and
 devastation" may not result—as has been popularly  reported in
 a great many cases in Georgia, since steam  medicine was intro-
 duced ?  Does not humanity, and every principle of conservatism
 demand this at their hands ?
  In contrast with this mystic and reserve policy  of the Thomso-
 nians, the Allopathic system is free to confess that it embraces ar-
 ticles which, if used abusively, in over doses, or  to a  repetition
 ad infinitum,  may be made to produce deleterious effects.  We
 do use articles—both from the mineral and vegetable kingdoms,
 with which we could produce death, if we choose  to give  them as
poisons instead of as curative remedies.  But knowing them to be
 active agents,  we use them only in  medicinal doses, incorporating 
45
in the recipe  much care and caution.  Such are the preparations
of Antimony, Mercury, Lead, &c, about which the Thomsonians
are always fussing.   Opium can be made as efficient a poison as
any mineral that can be mentioned.   And yet it is invaluable as
a remedy, and safe in the hands of rational and  prudent practition-
ers.   Not even a child need ever be killed by it.   This is true of
very many articles used as medicinal agents.   The doctor, and not
the medicine, is oftener to blame.  Lobelia is a good medicine in
its place,  when properly used.
   But Mercury—Calomel—is the great  bugbear; the  horrible
spectre that stands aghast before the Thomsonians.  We do use it,
and because we know it  to be a valuable remedy, and one for
which there  is no adequate substitute  in many cases.  But like
Lobelia, it has been abused, and made the medium of much mal-
practice.   I can take, however, a jug of Lobelia, and give  Dr. T.
 my bottle of Calomel, and I can kill five men  to his one, the year
 round.  The  ill-fame  and  unwholesome reputation that Calomel
 sustains in the eyes of the Thomsonians, has reached them through
 the irrational employment of it by 'quacks.'
   What, then, is this system denominated the "system of giving
 poisons ?"  What is its true basis, and what its component parts ?
   It is the "regular practice of medicine" as con tra-distinguished
 from all the  mushroon isms and pathies of the age.  That system
 that stands to-day a mighty monument of truth. Like that gigan-
 tic structure, now erecting at  our federal capital, to the name of
 Washington, it has been reared by contributed mites.  Every age
 jmd  almost every nation have contributed. Built upon a rock foun-
  dation—broad and republican—it has braved the storms of mon-
  archical  contention, and withstood the assaults of multiform heresy.
 Slowly, but surely has the work progressed. Fact after fact has been
 contributed.   Knowledge has been added to  knowledge. The pre-
 sent improving upon and adding to the experience of the past. Thus
 by geometrical progression has  it grown and strengthened; en-
 larging  its  domains,  and  confirming its parts  and proportions,
 and  to-day it stands  a polished structure of truth and power-
 its summit far over-reaching  the petty  isms and piratical hum-
  bugs of the  age.
    This is the Allopathic system.  As its basis, it is founded upon
  aknowledge of the human system—its Anatomy and its Physiolo-
 gy, in health and  in  disease.  This we consider  the basis of all
 sound therapeutics.  Our remedies are obtained from every source
  in nature.   It digs into the bowels of the earth and wanders far 
46
 into the meadows and over the hills.  It gleans from the fields of
 nature.  The tiny leaf has been plucked.  The Allopathist climbs
 the mountain and dives to the bottom of the  ocean for his reme-
 dies.  He makes bis demands upon every kingdom in nature, and
 none refuse their contributions.  He applies first to the vegetable
 and obtains most of bis boasted remedies.  He was first to invade
 the botanic garden in search of cures.  He first introduced Lobe-
 lia and Cayenne into the Materia Medica, correctly assigning to
 each  its  respective medical property,  only  leaving  to Samuel
 Thomson to demonstrate to  the world that Lobelia was  a poison
 and would kill.
   The Allopathist makes his demands upon every department of
 science and literature, appropriating to bis use whatever of prac-
 tical truth they  may present.   He brings into subserviency all the
 ingenious  appliances of art  that promise to aid him in  his mis-
 sion of mercy.   He excerpts  from  every available source, and
 drinks from every pure fountain. He would learn from the Thom-
 sonians, did they present any sound practical lessons, that were
 new and excellent.   Thus it  is seen that  Allopathy is truly eclec-
 tic in its resources, circumscribed by no definite limits,  oppressed
^ by  no arbitrary power, and restricted  to no  prescribed routine
■ course or creed.  The Allopathic doctrine is—not that disease "ex-
 alts vitality,'' but that it disturbs and deranges the phenomena of
 health; and our therapeutic motto is—not to  "depress vitality,"
 but to correct this disturbance, whatever may be its character.—
 We hesitate not, to draw a few "drops of blood," or even to ampu-
 tate a limb, if life may be preserved thereby.
   Dr. Thomson  pretends to imagine that I am in a great dilemma;
 that I am discontented with my own system  of practice, and can-
 not trust our own practitioners; and that I am at a loss  what to do
 or where to go.   But in this  he is most egregiously mistaken.   I
 love my Profession,  and consider that the system  to which I am
 attached, is the  only one at all competent to meet the demands  of
 the age.  I am proud, too, of our members, as  a general thing, for
 they are indeed "nature's noblemen," sustaining with dignity the
 honors of the Profession ; and our own city of Macon can  boast of
 a competent number of just  such "noblemen;" men of scientific
 attainments;  men of sound  sense, and judgment enough  to give
 drugs as medicines, and not as poisons.
   In my dilemma, the Doctor invites me over,  as the only safe  al-
 ternative, to "Medical Reform,  par excellence." Now, what would 
47
be gained by this step ?  Would I not be casting away diamonds,
to gather up pebbles ? If I fled from danger, would I not be rush-
ing wildly into destruction ?   What is the charm ? or where is the
safety ?  We have had some  revelations on the subject from Dr.
Thomson, but  I confess that I have seen nothing, as yet, to fasci-
nate me.  Perhaps it may appear better on close inspection, and
we will therefore take a microscopic view of

          "MEDICAL REFORM PAR EXCELLENCE."

   This is the system that has been trying, for the last half century,
to struggle into existence; but the Siren song of which is yet
heard only under  the roofjpf its  own  rustic cabin.  Its plaudits
are pronounced only by its owu followers, and the reverberation
of its praise is as circumscribed, comparatively, as the echo in the
dale.  Like other 'unit' systems that have sprung up in the world,
it has flourished  only for a season, and its earlier days were its
palmiest days. This new light was but a meteoric flash.  It now
wanes, and serious apprehensions  are being indulged that there is
not 'vitality' enough left about it  " to keep the imcard heat above
the outward, and the fountain above the stream."  It once flour-
ished to some  extent in Georgia, but it  seems  to be succumbing
under the light of truth and  experience.  Its claims never  have
been recognized in  the courts of Science.  It  is in vain that its
votaries urge its claims over the regular, time-honored  system of
Medicine.  It  would be like the drayman substituting the mighty
locomotive and  its train in the transportation of freight.
   But what was the origin and history of Thomsonism?—It had
its origin in   Samuel Thomson—a native of the  State of  New
Hampshire.  While quite a boy "driving the cows and minding
the geese," Samuel Thomson took his first lessons in Physic from
Mrs. Benton, an old  woman doctor who used 'yerbs.'  When she
went out to gather herbs and roots she would  take Sammy with
her, and "learn him the names of the  plants and what they were
good for."  Samuel  Thomson grew to manhood having "not the
most distant idea of engaging in  the practice of medicine."  He
had, he says, "but little learning,  and was awkward and ignorant
of the world"—having been raised in the back  woods, and sent to
school only one month.  But in obedience to his fondness for tast-
ing 'herbs' he unconsciously got to be doctor,  in the old woman
'root aud herb' system.  Knowing nothing at all  of the  human
svstem, his first great conception  was that man was  composed of 
48
four elements—Earth—Water—Air—and Fire ;  that the Earth
and Water were the solids, and Air and  Fire the fluids.  As a
deduction from this basis he concluded that " heat was life, and
cold death," and that "all constitutions are alike."  "Food and
medicine" he said " were the fuel which continues the fire, or life
of man."  He next conceived that "there are but two great prin-
ciples in the constitution of things, whether applied  to the mind
or body; the "principle of life and the principle of death." That
which "contains the principle of life can  never be tortured into
an administration of death;" and that "if a medicine is good in
any case, it must be absolutely good in  all cases."  That is—that
a plant, because it contains the "principle of life," cannot do oth-
erwise  than promote the  principle or life in man—that  is, cure
disease; and that  if a medicine is good  in one case, it must be
good in  every case.
  Xow this seems truly a most iconderful conception, and the in-
duction  therefrom exceedingly clear and logical!  No  wonder that
such a logical (?) system has grown out of it (?)  From this  new
philosophy must have sprung the Thomsonian doctrine that vege-
table remedies are not poisonous', and minerals, because inorgan-
ic—possessing not the "principle of life,"  are necessarily poison-
ous?  Pursuant to this idea that "heat is life and its extinction
death,"  and  that "medicines  kindle up the decaying spark," he
says that it  is "immaterial what is the name or color of the dis-
ease—whether bilious, yellow, scarlet or  spotted; whether it is
simple or complicated," and that "names are arbitrary things."—
This was the origin of the Thomsonian theory; the great cardinal
principle of which was—one cause for disease, one  disease, and
one remedy ; the same routine course for all.
  Samuel Thomson  had no use for Anatomy.  He  said that a
knowledge of the human system was "no  more necessary" for the
doctor, in qualifying him to "administer relief from pain and sick-
nes," "than to a cook in preparing food to nourish the body."  He
denied in toto the importance of knowing any thing about the
human organism, or its fuuctions, in health;  and that it mattered
not as to the character of the disease, or its "color," for there was
one general  treatment for all cases.  His disciples have held the
same doctrines, even since  the organization of the "Reform Col-
lege."   Prof. A. N. Worthy once took for his subject, in an Intro-
ductory lecture,—" the dissection of the human body," rebuking,
in harsh terms, the practice of dissecting,  and denied vehemently
that "medicine was founded upon  a knowledge of Pathological 
49
Anatomy."  So we see that this Thomsonian theory saps the very
foundation of every thing like rational therapeutics.
  Now these were  the original and most wonderful conceptions
of Thomson, upon  which were based bis "new" theory of medi-
cine—known in this day as  "Medical Reform par excellence"
This was indeed new philosophy, and quite contradictory of the
old saying that "there is nothing new under the sun."  This the-
ory was newr, and  just about  as nonsensical and ridiculous as  it
was new!  What say yon, reader?  Would Plato have recognized
it as philosophical ?
  But what was his practice—founded upon  this new theory?
He gathered a quantity  of herbs from the woods, which had been
pointed out to him, by Mother Benton, and set  about mixing and
compounding them.  He soon made out a number of preparations,
which he designated No. 1,  2, 3,  4, 5, 6;  a compound powder  /
called Composition; and another called nerve powder.  But Lo-
belia was his great hobby, which  he discovered when he was four
years old; but he  discovered afterwards that it bad  been discov-
ered sometime before he discovered it.  Thomson, likewise, "made
use of steam."  Out of these materials—plants and steam—he
devised what he called a

                    " COURSE OF  MEDICINE. "
   'Firstly,  give Nos. 2 and 3, adding a teaspoonful of No. 6;
then steam, and when in bed repeat it, adding No. 1, which will
cleanse the stomach and  raise a perspiration.   Then give an in-
jection made with  the same articles.  Put half a teaspoonful of the
nerve powder into each dose,  and  into the injection.  The injec-
tions to be administered at all times, and in all cases of disease, es-
pecially where there is canker, and inflammation  of the bowels,
and if mortification, add No. 6.
  This was the "regular course of medicine" to be  "made use of"
in all cases—constituting the "routine course" of Thomsonian med-
icine ; and which is still in use.  Samuel Thomson declared long
before his death, that "his system and remedies were as near per-
fection as it was in the power of man to bring them."  So perfect
the theory, and established the practice, that the whole was com-
mitted to rhyme in the following
4 
50
         THOMSONIAN  VEKSKS :

 "First steep the coffee number :5
 With number 2, then use it free;
 To clear the cold and raise the heat,
 Now place a hot stone at the feet.

 "The inward warmth now oft repeat,
 And change the stone when lost its heat;
 The fountain 'hove the stream keep clear,
 And perspiration will appear.

 "Then take the emetic No. 1,
 Until its duty is well done;
 The stomach cleansed, and the head made free
 From filth and pain, both equally.

 "Should the disorder reinforce,
 Then follow up the former course ;
 The second time I think will do,
 The third to fail, I  seldom knew.

 "The emetic number l's designed
 A genial med'eine  for mankind,
 Of every country, clime or place,
 Wide as the circle of our race,

 "In every case, and state, and stage,
 Whatever malady may rage ;
 For male or female, young or old,
 Nor can its value half be told.

 'To use this med'eine do not cease,
 Till you are helped of your disease;
 For Nature's Friend, this sure will be,
 When you are taken sick at sea.

 "If any one should be much bruised
 When bleeding frequently is used;
 A lively sweat upon that day
 Will start the blood a better way.

 "Let names of all disorders be
 Like to the limbs joined on a tree •
 Work on the root, and that subdue,
 Then all the limbs will bow to you.

 "So as the body is the tree,
The limbs are cholic. pleurisy,
Worms and gravel, gout and stone,
Remove the cause, and they are gone. 
51
              "My system's founded on the truth,
              Man's Air and Water, Fire and Earth,
              And death is cold and life is heat,
              These tempered well, your health's complete.
                      [Thomson's "Guide to Health" Page 146.

  This hew "system and remedies" thus perfected and reduced to
poetry, was patented by Thomson in the year 1813, and the patent
rights sold  all over the country.   He practiced it, and sold the
right to practice to others.  He had discovered—not steam, for it
had been  propelling steamboats  many years; not Lobelia and
Cayenne, and Camphor, and Myrrh, for they  were already in the
Materia Medica—but he had discovered a new and peculiar mode
of  mixing  and administering  them.  It  was a discovery of im-
mense importance, so he patented it  and sold it to every body.—
Thomson was repeatedly indicted for killing his patients, and in
one case, heavy damages obtained; but yet, "no case," says M. S.
Thomson, "has.ever been substantiated."
   Such is  the early history of Thomsonism as  given  by Samuel
Thomson himself.   Such the  outlines and doctrines of  theory and
practice.   It wTas the  offspring of a crude and uncultivated brain.
It was nurtured by ignorance and illiteracy, developed to a state
of ridiculous and absurd "perfection," and finally prostituted by
its founder to mercenary and selfish purposes.  It scorned to con-
tempt the experience  of past centuries and yet perched itself upon
"experience."   What experience ?  The  experience  of  Samuel
Thomson.   He acknowledged no auxiliary help.   He originated
and "perfected" it, and sold it to posterity for money.   He realized
the  profits in cash, leaving to his followers the onerous and diffi-
cult task of demonstrating to the world that it possessed any inhe-
rent intrinsic merit whatever.
  Samuel Thomson, in bis new theory of medicine, reminds me of
the "Quack Frog" in xEsop's Fables;  A frog emerging from the
mud of a swamp, proclaimed to all  the wTorld  that be was come to
cure all diseases.   "Here," he cried, "come and see a  doctor, the
proprietor of medicines such  as man never heard of before; no,
not .Esculapius himself."  The moral of  this  fable is—"Test a
man's professions  by  his practice."  Now  if this  rule be applied
to modern Thomsonism, what will be  the verdict?  Will it stand
the test ?
  I do not like to say  it, but "facts are stubborn things," and when
recorded, are subject  to the inspection of all readers—this was a 
52
patent medicine—quack nostrum  system, leading the van of the
mighty host of patent "panaceas."  It was the first  record, that I
have seen,  of a "system and remedies" being secured by patent
right,  but  an innumerable host of patent Physics has followed
in its make.  I say it was a quack nostrum  system, and its own
record shows the fact.  (Thomson's "Guide to Health," Pages 250
and 251.)
  Now what do we find in original Thomsonism to charm us ? In
what consisted its excellencies ? Does  the reader admire the grand
philosophical conceptions of Samuel Thomson ?  Does he appre-
ciate Lobelia as a universal curative f and admire its excessive
employment in  all kinds of disease?   Does he look  upon it as an
adequate substitute for  all other remedies?  Is he charmed with
its effects as exhibited in the  "alarm  stage ?"  Does he like the
Thomsonian abuse of steam as  a remedy ?  Does  he like  the prin-
ciple of "routinism"—employing  the "same  means" in all class-
es and "colors" of disease, regardless of circumstances ?  If he
does not appreciate these features,  then he can have no fancy for
Thomsonian medicine,  for these  are its  peculiar characteristic
traits, and there is nothing else to distinguish  it.

               THOMSONISM STILL THE SAME.

  The question, perhaps, occurs to  the reader,  whether the  Thom-
sonian Theory and Practice is the same now  as when first intro
duced by Samuel  Thomson  and his disciples ?   From the lights
before us, we answer, unhesitatingly, that it is the same !   If not,
where is the record of anything like revolution, or radical change?
What and where are the evidences of such change?  Is not the
name of Samuel.Thomson revered to this day ?  Is he not referred
to as the highest authority /   Is not his name signalized  by the
appellation "Immortal?" Has it not been said of him, even since
the establishment  of the Reform Medical College, and by one of
its Professors, that Thomson is "regarded as the Tree, the root and
trunk of the Lobelia and vapor  bath  system," and that he is the
"Tree of knowledge ?"   (See Worthy's Practice, page 597.)  I say
that  this practice is still  the same—the identical same, and I prove
it by their own words.  Read the speech of one of the learned pro-
fessors of  the  Reform  Medical  College,  at Macon, delivered in
1858, in which he says : "Shade of the immortal Thomson ! if it
is permitted to celestial beings ever to revisit  the scenes of earth,
I invoke thy presence now.  Let thy spirit hover over this Insti- 
53
 tution.  Inspire us  with wisdom, courage  and hope.  Let our
 vows of fidelity be made to thee.  Hear our pledges, and let them
 rise as incense from this altar. Render us worthy of thy memory,
 and of the great principles it is our pride  to advocate."  Now, do
 not these  words  bespeak allegiance and fidelity  to the same old
 Thomsonian principles ?  If not, what did the speaker mean ?   But
 I contend that this system—in doctrine and practice, is the same.
 and if the reader wishes evidence still nearer home, I refer him to
 the admissions and arguments of M. S. Thomson in  his article of
 "rejoinder."  Does he not re-affirm and maintain vehemently the
 same principles of doctrine?  and reiterate the same practice?

                    MISCELLANEOUS POINTS.

   Dr. Thomson makes allusion to the "frogs in the pond."   They
 were truly in a pitiable condition, and so would be the world, with
 no other "Balm" for its varied and multiform diseases, but Lobe-
 lia and Pepper, and no other system of cure than the "emetic herb
 and vapor bath" system.  I feel sorry for these "frogs" in the fa-
 ble, and as sincerely deplore the condition of those persons whose
 ignorance  of the true theory and practical operations of Thomson-
 ism, has doomed them sacrificial victims to its unhallowed altars.
 They are being "misled" by such ignorance and credulity "in mat-
 ters involving questions of life and death."   I  would point them
 to safety by warning them of reckless and irrational  practitioners
 of every order;  and as certain baneful errors are  legalized by the
 "Lobelia and steam system," I would warn them against that sys-
 tem.  Errors  in the shape of wolfish intruders ought to be  watch-
 ed for and rebuked by every system  of medicine, and the  system
 that fosters such radical errors ought to be discountenanced.  I
 have said that routinism—as an  element in the practice of med-
 icine—is fraught with much danger.  Dr. Thomson says  that it
 exists  radically in his system  of practice, and that  he acknowl-
 edges the fact with "pride and pleasure."  I say, consequently,
 that Thomsonism is to be avoided as a dangerous  system of medi-
 cine.  It is a wolf in "sheeply clothing."  The public is deceived
 by its professions, as may be seen in the following items :
  It claims to  be a "sustaining and invigorating" system ; yet Lo-
 belia is the great hobby remedy, and Lobelia nauseates and vom-
 its, and actively depresses the powers of life.  The steam and va-
por bath—a la mode Thomsoniensi—is, likewise prostrating in its
effects;  and many other articles  used  in  that practice, have the 
54
same kind of debilitating tendency.  But  yet, it is an "invigora-
ting and sustaining" system.   They say they use no poisons—yet
Lobelia is the panacea, and their own testimony criminates it as a
violent, narcotic poison.  We have already enumerated a number
of other articles in their catalogue of medicines that are poisonous
—according to the ablest and most reliable authorities on the ef-
fects of poisons.   They say they "draw no blood," and yet they
have surgeons who amputate limbs, and do various other  cutting
operations on human flesh?  They say their remedies will produce
certain "invariable" effects, and that they can "calculate with al-
most mathematical precision" on  such  effects; but they  permit
their patients "to  go from their gaze." Bills of mortality show that
their medicines are not infallible in saving life.
  Thus we see the "character  of the animal that has been flaunt-
ing these vestments in all the security of seeming innocence ;"
and we plainly see  that the  "animal" is not  worthy the "vest-
ments'1 wherewithal he presumptuously clothes himself. Thomson-
ism reminds me of the fable of the "Man and the Satyr." It "blows
hot and cold from the same mouth." It obtains all sorts of effects
from the same remedy.   It is  "all things to all men."   It is pre-
sumption in any system of medicine to claim, or intimate, even,
that it can cure all disease.  Human nature is frail, and all human
science must be correspondingly fallible.  I think that Thomson-
ism is wanting in  candor, in not admitting its own weaknesses and
fallibilities.  We  read of many noted 'Panaceas,' but experience
proves  them humbugs.
  Dr. Thomson ridicules the  idea that the physician  should  be
held responsible for the "double duty of watching the remedy as
well as the disease."  We hold it in 'Rational Medicine,' to be  of
vital importance—an absolute duty.  No  man  should  doctor me
who did not feel the necessity of "watching his remedies"  as well
as my disease.  But true to his faith, the Thomsonian cares not  to
watch the effect of his medicine, or even to "see his patient" at all,
for  he can prescribe for him "at a  distance, and on  sound  physio-
logical  principles" (?)  Now Dr. Thomson may  as wrell employ
himself "dashing  straws against the wind" as  to  attempt to inau-
gurate  such doctrines with intelligent and rational people. 
55
  And nowr, when I have written my summary conclusions, I shall
have  done.   I have endeavored  to illustrate some of the  prac-
tical points in Allopathic medicine, and to vindicate my posi-
tions against the assaults of Dr.  Thomson.  With what success,
the reader must  judge.   Having  been invited to join in the war
against  the Allopaths, and to adopt Thomsonism—as the " only
rational theory of disease," I felt called upon to examine this '■the-
ory.''—The  result of this inquiry  is before the reader.  Let him
decide for himself whether he likes it.  I have given it correctly,
in the language of its own writers  and speakers, and have referred
to books and pages quoted from.
  The two errors—"Routine and Book practice"—which I sought
to rebuke as  "wolfish intruders" into the Allopathic borders, and
which I besought our practitioners to drive out, have been claim-
ed by Dr. Thomson as radical elements in his system.  I charged
this admission upon his first "rejoinder," and if his own  argu-
ments do not prove it true, he, at least, admits it candidly in his
second article.  Thus we see that what is erroneous in Allopathy,
is radical—elemental truth in Thomsonism.  This constitutes the
difference between  the  two.  I think the reader will not have
failed to perceive a striking contrast between  " Rational Medi-
cine and Thomsonian Routine."
  But I will pursue this subject no farther.  With this article  ter-
minates this  controversy, so  far as I am  concerned.  I regretted
the necessity of having to expose such a hard featured  system,
but if, by this sort of disquisition, the  "public good" has, to any
extent, been  promoted,  I shall  feel compensated  for my services
in assisting Dr. Thomson in  bis laudable enterprise of "ventila-
tion."
                        CONCLUSION.

  Having taken a peep into the Sanctum Sanctorum of Thomson-
ism, learned  its  origin and history; having studied  its new doc-
trines of theory and practice, and  traced some of its marvellous (?)
results; having satisfied myself that modern "Medical Reform"
is the same as Samuel Thomsonism, originally, I  have been ena-
bled to arrive at sundry definite conclusions.
  I conclude not to affiliate with the Thomsonians.   I conclude
that there  are already as many of that  faith and order as  there
ought to be, for the good of  the world—that there is not much in
the whole "fabric"  of Thomsonism, as originated, perfected  and
* 
5(>
practiced, that is worthy the confidence of the public—that it con-
tains much that is absurd and nonsensical—that there is not much
reason or sense in the whole of it. I conclude that the more I see
and know of it the less I like it; and that the nearer I get towards
it the more hideous  it becomes.  I conclude  that it  is no wonder
that its own practitioners are  becoming disgusted with it, and se-
cretly employing Allopathic medicines; and less wonder, still, that
when they or their families (some of them) get very sick that they
send for the "Calomel doctor."—I conclude  that itjs no wonder
that they incline to mix  in with the "regular practice" (as very
many of them are doing) and to practice "both systems"—that the
nearer they approach to rational Allopathy the greater success will
they have in  treating disease.   I conclude that I was right in at-
taching "criminality" to "routinism" as seen in the "alarm stage,"
for patients so moribund  are certainly in  imminent danger of dy-
ing; and I question not  that many have gone down "irrecovera-
bly" in this stage.   I conclude that  "Medical Reform had better
reform radically, or else  suffer  itself amalgamated, so as to lose
entirely its identity as a system: for I conclude finally, that Thom-
sonism is "VOX GRAN UMlil'G."      <A