^         M.£
{J 'rUrwt.^...,
REPLY
DR. J. DICKSON SMITH'S PAMPHLET
64
LOBELIAISM,"
        M. S. THOMSON, M. U., y

Prof, oj Obstetrics, Diseases of Women and Children, Therapeutics and Materia Medica in Uie
            Reform Medical College of Georgia.


   MACON, GEORGIA.

TELEGRAPH STEAM PRINTING IJOl'SB.

       1860. 
 
                         REPLY

TO THE CHARGES MADE BY J. DICCSOU SMITH, M. D. EST HIS EEOTNT PAMPHLET

         ON  LOBELIAISM,

                BY M.S. THOMSON, M. D.,
Prof, of Obstetrics, Diseases of Women and Children, Therapeutics and Materia Medica in the
                   Reform Medical College of Georgia.

  When J. Dickson Smith, M. D., of  Macon, Georgia, undertook
the correction of abuses and the eradication of errors as wolfish in-
truders from his own "borders", we wished him God  speed, and,
after correcting his statement with regard to us, tried to help him,
because we considered that much good might be done by discuss-
ing before  the public  in a fair spirit the doctrines  upon which Al-
lopathy is  founded, as well as some of the practices  to which  a
belief in those doctrines gives rise, and which it seemed to be the
the doctor's object to expose.
  In this "labor of love" on his part it seems he did not wish as-
sistance, so, no sooner did we interfere, than  like the wife who
was scratching her husband's face, he turned on us, and has done
his best to  leave the marks of his talons on our countenance, and
it must be  said that the effort has assumed not a  few  of the fem-
inine characteristics  that  are usually exhibited in such a contest.
The boasted "ventilation" of Thomsonism was a tremendous effort
to destroy  our comeliness, and but for  the readiness  with which
it was in our power to turn  aside the uplifted and outstretched
claws, might have resulted in rendering  us "hard featured" for
life.  Having satisfied ourself, however, with merely parrying the
wifely attack, while  planting a few well  directed  and vigorous
blows upon the frontispiece of the spouse, we left them to make
up their differences as best they could, and awaited with placidity
the conjoint result of further cogitations—and here we have it,
womanish  to the last.  Another pamphlet has appeared, in which
the original Controversy is abandoned, and all  the positions so
vauntingly assumed, are surrendered at discretion, for hard knocks
don't suit some stomachs—because they produce "nausea?''—and
hence nothing is now attempted by force of argument,  every thing
by length of tongue.   Strength of argument gives  way to strength
of expression, and invective takes the  place of cogency of reason-
ing; hence we have been well scolded, and called  almost  every
thing but a gentleman, in the last pamphlet of Dr. Smith, so that
it almost seems that it requires for the proper "Vindication" of his
articles an  extraordinary proportion of vindictiveness.  The tem-
per and the tears, the stamping of the foot and the spitefulness of
expression  are all present, and the impotence that can think of 
2
  nothing else, breaks'out in "I'll tell"J  "I'll tell"! and bursts forth
  in an exposure of all the secrets thai <are known! Happy is he who
  has nothing to fear from such exposure, thrice  happy he who can
  keep his temper, and clad in the panoply of truth, smile at the "en-
  venomed darts" that are hurled against him, knowing as he does
  that they are pointless as regards himself, and therefore fall harm-
  lessly at his feet!  This is.exactly the  condition in which we find
  ourself, as can be very easily shown, but  it gives us no  pleasure
  to dwell upon such subjects; we desire to  "ventilate" the systems,
  not the men who advocate them, and hence would do almost any
  thing rather than quote even the Doctor's own words whce they
  fit pointedly in his own  case; and  although  he complains of our
  seeking "fresh pretexts" for attacks "personal upon himself" in the
  articles we have already written, we beg to assure him that in
  this he is mistaken—we have sought no such opportunity;  for it
  has been our especial wish that  the controversy should be con-
  ducted in a friendly spirit, with a view to  the elucidation of truth,
  for the benefit of science as well as that  of the community in which
  we live, and of others who might take an interest in the questions,
  pro and con, as  they may have been presented.
   This, however, is  not the phase or shape in  which Dr. Smith
  wishes the controversy to progress; the personal gives character
  to all his writings, so much so, that when we would have smoothed
 over the attack  he  made upon his own brethren and  turned  the
 edge of his invective towards the system  they had espoused, we
 were taken sharply to task, and reminded  with  some sternness it
 was the persons, not the system, that were subjected to his cutting
 criticisms.   From his  treatment, therefore, of them, we  had no
 right to expect immunity from  like  attacks, and have not been at
 all disappointed; though we have not  the slightest wish  to com-
 plain; ours is not a whining disposition, thank Heaven, but we
 are tenacious as  to  our positions, sensitive as to character, and
 perhaps "exquisitely sensitive" on the subject of unwarranted at-
 tacks upon  the  practice  we have adopted;  and however much
 more it might be to our credit to pursue the Christian method of'
 turning the other cheek, we yet own to too much of the Scottish
 leaven for that, and hence the motto of "Nemo me impune laces-
 sit," has generally been carried* out  by  us  in  practice, and those
 who have "wantonly assailed" us,  "without  provocation,"  have
 had to look out for their own positions,  and if the files  of the Ma-
 con papers "attest" any thing in regard to this matter, it is, that
 those who go shearing sometimes return shorn, and those  who go
 plucking should  be careful of their  own feathers; and  also, that
 those who attempt to run us down, should  mind their own boat;
but so "quiet and unobtrusive" are we generally, that unless some
such attempt is made, the "little-st apple" of them all may "swim"
beside us unquestioned even as  to its seeming, and may revel in
all such enjoyments  as "little apples" may, if it only knows its 
3
place, and keeps clear of the weather-side of our "sensitive" olfac-
tories; and so, also, might Dr Smith, for it has been our desire to
say as little of him as possible, nor shall we now do more than
quote him upon himself, dose him with his own pills, and then —
treat  him as he  does disease or that celebrated "flea"—let him
"go-"
   As a specimen of what may be done in this way, it is only nec-
essary to transpose and substitute a few wrords  of the first  para-
graph of his late pamphlet, when it is presumed, but few "read-
ers of recent pamphlets" will fail to see the exactness of the  fit as
well as the head it applies  to, thus: A pompous  Practitioner of
Allopathy,—which was "inaugurated" by,  say, Paracelsus,  the
Prince of Quacks, and  of  course founded in presumptuous "ig-
norance"—"had nothing to recommend him to the good sense and
favor of the people, save the noisy clamorings of self constituted
"censorship" and  "self-inflated"  gasconade  "and whether from
force of habit, or from some motive of necessity, he still  pursues
the same course, even down to the closing paragraph of a recent
sixteen page pamphlet, issued in  the city of Macon."  "So noto-
rious indeed, is this Practitioner's habit of boasting, gassing and
abusing other people, that almost  every page of his pamphlets
and articles "are" (sic)  full of it,  and every  discourse deeply  im-
bued with the same spirit."  "And yet, so exquisitely sensitive is
he, that the slightest allusion"  to the  candid admissions of Allo-
pathists in regard to the alarming defects of their own  system,
"nauseates" him and causes so much "bitterness" and biliousness
that  the very fountain  of  thought becomes tainted and all  his
perceptions  are jaundiced.  " Have not many of the quiet and
unobtrusive medical practitioners" where he has been, "been thus
wantonly assailed without  provocation?"  "That this is true, let
the files of the Macon," Savannah and Atlanta "papers attest, and
that  I have been similarly attacked, no  candid reader of recent
pamphlets will question"!!
   The Doctor seems to  take it very hard that we should have ta-
ken him so much  to  task for charging criminality upon  the  Bo-
tanies, and reiterates the former statement that he "alluded pass-
inglv" "to the Lobelia Practice, but with no disposition to attack
that"system", and seems surprised, and feels aggrieved, that "not-
withstanding the remark was  accompanied with complimentary
credit to modern Thomsonians," yet he was forthwith  'assailed,'
he says, through the city papers  by us, who assumed  the- cham-
pionship with avidity, and seized upon this  as a,fresh pretext for
an attack personal upon himself, and a general onslaught upon the
Medical Faculty"!!  Why  don't somebody take pity upon such a
badly abused gentleman?   Is  it not shameful that so "quiet and
unobtrusive a medical practitioner should have been so wantonly
assailed without provocation"?  It is true, that about the  first  the
Macon people knew that such a quiet gentleman was among them, 
4
 Was by the appearance of some of the most abusive articles ever
 written by mortal man, against the very men, probably, that had
 taken him most kindly to their hearts and warmed him into life!
 but then, he merely did it for a "pleasant pastime," it seems, and
 "not from necessity", and therefore as an amateur had  he not a
 right to say just what he pleased?  He did not mean any thing
 by it, and though he did charge  the Botanies with criminality,
 did he not at the same time compliment them, and should not that
 suffice to mend their wounded honor, especially as not even that
 was vouchsafed to his own friends, and they seem satisfied?  But
 no, this man Thomson, "Professor" Thomson, "who has not depart-
 ed from the truth in twenty years", and who is so exquisitely sen-
 sitive that "the slightest allusion to the practice he follows (merely
 calling it criminal, for instance)  is repelled with bitterness and
 scorn"—"assumed championship  with  avidity, and seized upon
 this as a "fresh pretext," Dr. Smith says, to " attack him person-
 ally", though it is strongly surmised he never heard of him before.
   Is it not "passing strange" that a gentleman should  expect  to
 enter a city amid such  a flourish of trumpets, with arms bared
 and ready for the fight, accusing  young and old  of almost every
 kind of crime that is possible of commission by any medical man,
 and then when he is fairly met upon ground of his own choosing,
 and confessedly vanquished  in the contest—for silence gives con-
 sent, they say—is it not "puerile," to say the least of it, to assume
 the whining tone of a martyr, cry "peccavi," and take refuge in
 the declaration that he did not mean to fight, all  he did was for
 "pleasant pastime", and like  Jack in  the lion's skin, call  out,
 Good people,  kind  people, dou't  be afraid, it is  only  me, whom
 all know, and may henceforth consider one of the quietest and
 most unobtrusive gentlemen alive! if that exquisitely sensitive
 "Professor" can only be prevented from "attacking" me again!
   It seems that 80 page pamphlet has been an over-dose for him
 and has resulted in the "alarming symptoms" accompanied, con-
 fessedly, with  excessive "nausea"  which it will be charity to re-
 lieve, according to the Thomsonian rule, by the administration  oi
 a little "Pepper," so that even in  his own experience he may be
 able to recount the wonderful effects of the "Lobelia and Pepper
 Practice" in quieting nervous irritability after the removal of so
 much bitterness through the medium of his last little pamphlet
 in which he in effect says, like the blatant boy that got whipped,
 ±t  l_can t—whip—you—I can make mouths at your sister'"
 and accordingly attacks the Faculty of the College!!  and under-
 takes the role  of the "informer" as a dernier resort, with a view,
 to the exposure ot the "gross frauds" that he says are bein- per-
 petrated  m the midst of the public! and in order to get a side
 stroke  at  "our Professor," undertakes by way of implication to
show up some of his "adcaptandum tricks" and  "hoaxes" that 
5
he is playing off upon  his readers, by which, he  says, ihey are
"greatly deceived," and  "impressed falsely" !
  Now, if that were true, we should feel very badly on the sub-
ect,—but we have no wish to "deceive" any body, nor the slight-
est desire to "hoax"  or "impress any one falsely"—and  to prove
that we do not, we with confidence point to the very statements
Dr. Smith has made, and show that  there is not a word of truth
in the accusation ! !
  The first "announcement " to which he refers and characterizes
" as any thing in the world hut correct" is  " That  Prof. Bennett
the 'highest medical authority' hailing from the 'highest  seat of
medical learning' has sounded a new 'key note,' and that the whole
medical choir "is striking up the same tune."  Having thus quo-
ted he goes into an elaborate statement with quotations and refer-
ences to show that the  medical men of Great Britain  have not
endorsed Bennett's views, and " are" not  striking up that same
tune, predicating the whole, splenetic words and all, upon  the un-
fair, "tricky," "deceitful" and "false" quotation that he himself
has made,  in which  by  slipping in an "is " for a  "will " he  has
changed the whole sense, and thus he himself has  made the only
part of that statement that is "not correct,"and the question natur-
ally arises  is this done from ignorance or design.  If from the for-
mer, which is the most favorable construction we can put upon it,
then it but furnishes another proof of what we stated in refer-
ence to  Dr. Arnold's recommendation to study the  classics, which
is often done at the expense of a common knowledge of good plain
English.  If on the other hand, this substitution was made  from
design,  then it shows that the Doctor himself is the " trickster,"
and is chargeable with one of the most unwarrantable attempts to
impress falsely and  deceive his readers that any writer could  be
guilty of, and which  but ill becomes the dignified position to which
he aspires or the character for fairness that we have been disposed
to award hirn.
  But though Dr. Smith must in this instance admit that the state-
ment he characterized as "not correct " is  the very opposite and
true as truth itself, he yet brings up another instance in which he
tries to make the reader think he "has me sure," and  discourses
at considerable length upon the presumption that what he says is
so.   This too is the text on which he predicates his statements to
show the pending clown fall of  Medical Reform throughout the
country!!
  That those who have  not read our former pamphlet may under-
stand the  point involved in these  statements it will be proper to
premise that in Dr. Smith's first he charged among other naughty
Thomsonian practices, the want of strict adherence to truth, vitu-
perative expression,  slander, &c, to which  we  replied thus:
  "The most vituperative expressions we  ever indulge in, are quotations from
his own or his brethren's writings ; and unless truth be " slander," we claim en- 
6
tire exemption from the charge of using any such weapons of attack, for we have
ever exhibited such a "scrupulous regard for truth "  in all that we have ever
published as fact of our own knowledge that we will give-Dr. Smith or any other
man  five hundred Dollars to produce a single instance in which we have depar-
ted from it during the long period in which our name has been before the pub-
lic !  And since he has called  it up we hereby dare him to make a like propo-
sition in regard to what he has published in the last three months."
   We also directly offered him  a like sum to  substantiate if he
could  one  of his own voluntary statements.   Having failed to do
either by way  of clearing his own skirts, his object seems now to
be to pull  us down  to a like position by making it appear that, we
"cannot make our  own statements harmonize," and finding it dif-
ficult to make  out a fair case, we shall now see to what shifts he is
reduced, as in  the  first instance, to make even  a  semblance of a
case against us.  Hear him :
   " The" Professor "speaks boastingly of his lThomsonian Colleges throughout
the country? and in doing which he pointedly contradicts what he said only last
year  in his Reform Journal about the shipwrecked condition of all the Thomso-
nian  Colleges, except his own  in Macon."
   "This article distinctly declares that, 'to-day the College at Macon is the only
Reform Medical school in the world, now above wind and tide.' "
   Now listen to his exordium and note its  exuborent richness !
   "Professor " Thomson! refer co  your own 'Pepper Journal  (how  pungent)
page 270 and read what you  said about the effects of the true light of  Medical
Reform having been scattered."
   "Tell me  whether you meant what you said,  and if so, how is the public to
reconcile that statement with what you now say  about Thomsonian Colleges
throughout the country?  A man who has not departed  from the truth in 20
years can certainly make his own statements harmonize! "
   And so  he can, Dr. Smith, however wonderful  that fact  may
appear to  you, and perhaps there could be no better proof  given
to the public that what we state is "veritable " than  the attempt
you thus make to call it  in question.   Is that the best you can do?
Is that the way you establish your boasted "facts" and make but
"few " of them at that ?   Yerily unless the  others jwi bring for-
ward are  a little more reliable you will have to change the head-
ing  of your first and title pages, from "a  few facts " to the  very
antithesis  of the statement and then your readers would not be
impressed "falsely"  as to their character.  There is but one thing
lacking,however,inthis comparison and statement to  make all that
Dr.  Smith says true, but  it is very material, for I never made any
such statements in the Journal or  elsewhere,  but maintain now
that "this  system has its  Colleges throughout the country " which
is all that  we said on this point in our pamphlet.
   It is true that an anonymous writer over the signature of  "Re-
form " did make some such  statements, but as we  were neither
writer nor editor, we were not responsible for them, and especially
not committed to the endorsement of mere matters  of opinion, that
might find their way into the columns of the Reformer even though
we be part owner; and this effort of Dr. Smith to make it appear 
7
that we "pointedly  contradicted" ourself, is the  most "pointed,"
endeavorerto "hoax" "deceive" and "falsely" impress, his read-
ers that can be imagined and shows the straits to which he is driv-
en to make out his case!!
  Why at this rate, every Editor or part-owner would be a mixed
up conglomeration of every shade of opinion that could possibly
be conceived, and put in print by anonymous scribblers, and might
be called on by just such men as Dr. Smith—who is evidentially
a "know nothing " in regard to newspaper ethics—to square  his
matured statements of to-day, by the opinions of somebody that
had written for his columns more than a year ago and be branded
as "contradicting himself pointedly " if he did not do it.  If that
were the rule  what  would become of our worthy  friend  Clisby,
cautious  as he is, or of Rose, Knowles, Andrews  and all the rest
of the  Editorial fraternity who have full controul of what goes into
their columns ? how much less culpable should we be esteemed,
who had no control of them at all ?  and how far  fetched must be
the accusation  that is founded in such a state of  facts ?
  And then, as to the Colleges themselves.  Why ! Dr. Smith
thinks no mo.e of blotting  out a college on  the  statement of an
anonymous writer, than he  would of taking breakfast, and seems
to do it with as much gusto too, as could be exhibited by  him in
the demolition  of one that was not too much  "routine!" and  we
have not the shadow of a doubt  that his celebrated "Jurist"too,
would  render  a verdict on the same evidence,  especially if it
 were his interest to do so.
  But  thank Heaven  the opinions of "Reform" like those of Eli-
jah when he imagined himself the only one left of all the faithful,
have not been confirmed.   The colleges so vauntingly maintaiied
as being defunct are still surviving and progressing favorably.—
Even that in New York about which fears were entertained has
fallen back on first principles and finds as all others do who try it,
that the closer they adhere  to stern  honest principle the better
they succeed, a course, which, without intending the slightest of-
fence, we would cordially commend to all gentlemen who desire a
ligitimate success nearer home.  Of the "Memphis Medical Re-
view," it is sufficient to say, that the one number that saw the light
did not represent the Memphis College, but a faction that  tried to
kill it,  but who, not unlike other parties whom  we  wot  of, succeed-
ed only in convincing the world  of their own vindictiveness, and
showed for a time how possible it was for  even "little apples " to
"swim."
  Having succeeded so well (?) in showing up the  "ad captandum
'tricks' of the Professor,' Dr. Smith next attacks the Faculty, and
criticises with  a great deal of apparent satisfaction the book, that
for reasons stated in the preface they were compelled to publish,
and in  order to show the depth of his research and his familiarity
with authorities on medical subjects, traces up the descriptive part 
8
 of the work—<-which has been literally the same for generations—
 to the very authorities which the Faculty designated in the Pre-
 face !  and pointed  out by name, and then endeavors to " im-
 press" his readers with what "falsity " we leave them  to Judge,
 that he ferreted  them out!!!   What was  there to  "ferret ?"—
 Nothing, absolutely nothing, for they had acknowledged of their
 own free will, all the real facts that Dr. Smith says he has "ferret-
 ed" out, and yet he talks of "frauds " "gross  frauds "  being perpe-
 trated upon the public !!
   " Fraud !"  Can "fraud " exist where there is no concealment ?
 or is it common for those who intend the commission of "gross
 frauds " on the public to proclaim the fact ?
   Is it not proclaimed by the Faculty themselves that part of the
 work referred to is a "compilation?"  Do they not say so in as
 many words, and that they  have obtained "from  every available
 source within their reach the fullest,  most recent, and accurate
 description of diseases, their causes, history, diagnosis and progno-
 sis, and that on these points they have drawn "freely" on the au-
 thors by name that Dr. Smith  says  he  has ferreted out ? (See
 Preface.)
   Was it not they who put that ferret in  the hole, or at least poin-
 ted it out to him ?  Yea verily ! and  they make him welcome  to
 all the game he can find  there, as well as all the credit he is like-
 ly to obtain for such burrowing work,  which seems so congenial.
 _ Well,  then, admitting that that part of the work is  a "Compila-
 tion,"  does it invalidate the statement that we made  in our pam-
 phlet that Dr. Smith takes exception to?  Not at all, for the fact
 still stands plainly forth,  that "this system" not only "has now its
 Colleges throughout the country," but "its principles are elabor-
 ately set forth in  large volumes of more than a thousand pages",
 and we refer all to the same book, a part of which Dr. Smith crit-
 icises,  to show it.   In that our principles are elaborately set forth
 by Prof. Bankston in a paper the originality of which cannot be
 questioned, and it will, moreover, be^seen, that those principles
 are confirmed and are identical with  those enunciated, thus late
 in the  day, by Prof. Bennett, though  they are no more like Allo-
 pathic  principles, as hitherto known,  to use Dr. Smith's elegant
 comparison, "than is a chimney sweep like a wood-sawyer " and
 could not  be copied.  The practical  part speaks for itself, and
 would  hardly be claimed, by even Dr. Smith, as Allopathic, and
 as these are the only two departments in medical science on which
 we materially differ, there surely can be no harm in incorporating
 the facts of science, as  by  all  acknowledged,  into our medical
 works, though we  may not have had the honor of their discovery.
  If none but the discoverers of scientific truths had any right to
use them, of how many could Allopathy boast as exclusively hers ?
Is it not notorious that the greatest and best remedies known to,
and in  use by that profession, are discoveries of some naked sav- 
9
ages  wandering Arabs, red Indians, or South American Aztecs
that had no more claim to scientific knowledge than Dr. Smith
has to a knowledge of the size of the knife with which the man in
the moon cuts his cheese?  but do not all  belong to the common
stock of knowledge, no matter how  attained to?
  If then the research of scientific men or the observations of sav-
ages in all ages be the common property of all, have not Reform-
ers as good  a right as anybody to the appropriation of so much of
it as suits their legitimate purposes ? and if so, is it a "gross fraud"
on anybody to detail the facts of such knowledge as this research
has brought to light and observation has confirmed, or can anybody
claim the exclusive possession of such scientific knowledge as  be-
longing exclusively to any  system?   If nay—then the descriptive
part of medical science belongs to all, and is the same to the Re-
former, the Allopathist, the Homceopathist or any other pathist in
existence, and the symptoms of particular forms of disease are just
as determinate to-day as they were in the days of Gregory, and if
Dr. Smith had read the descriptive works of Authors at a consid-
erably earlier period than "twelve years ago," he would have been
able to discover such a wonderful sameness throughout the whole,
that it might have been hard to definitely say which was the origin-
ator or which the copyist. It is true, that some care has been taken
to disguise many of those little descriptive pilferings; an alteration
in style here, a  transposition there, and a half acknowledgment
elsewhere, but all evincing to  the honorable mind that whatever
might be said about the right, the honest way is to copy and  ac-
knowledge, as has been done in that particular department by Prof.
Comings, who had in  charge the getting up of that portion of  the
book, and so, notwithstanding the determined effort of Dr. Smith
to implicate us "individually," while acting for the College or  the
Faculty, as their agent, it turns out that though we furnished  the
Capital, we had nothing to do with the writing of the work, and so
it was stated in the Preface, a fact which Dr. Smith knows, and if,
therefore, there was any "trick," or  breach of "American Ethics"
in this matter, it was done or made  by an American, and it must
be said—considering the manner of American Publishers, who do
not merely quote, or even copy from, but republish entire, without
leave or license, the works of( foreign Authors—that the Ethics or
usages so designated, seem all to be the other way; and the argu-
ment advanced by Dr. Smith in reference to "satisfying a scrupu-
lous public" on this point, must all be thrown away as inapplicable,
or Dickens, Bulwer, Thackaray, and all the rest of the foreign Au-
thors, medical included, are greatly mistaken as to what consti-
tutes  "American  Ethics"  in this particular.  Indeed the fact is
rather notorious than otherwise, that more of the American Med-
ical Authors than  one, is so much indebted to the foreign element,
that were it removed, a much  greater collapse of their volumes
would take  place than could possibly arise if the same process 
10
were carried out on the Reform Practice!  Without it what would
the great Dunglison's voluminous works be? But Dr. Smith might
not wish to take our say so on that point, and we therefore refer
him to the authority he himself quotes, The British and foreign
Medico Chirurgical Review.  On  page 253 of the October num-
ber for 1859, he will find these words :  " Until within a very Re-
cent date, American works on Physiology were almost entirety
unknown in Europe, a circumstance solely due to the fact of their
being LITTLE ELSE  than Crude Compilations of European
works"!!  Little else! and yet  American  Allopathic Medical
Authors have amassed enormous fortunes by the sale of just such
works as their own, "but as to whether it was a legitimate specu-
lation," "and whether  the  rights"—not  guaranteed, alas!—"of
other authors were not grossly infringed upon"—the public must
decide!  The witness in this case, is the doctor's own, nor can
even he deny the truth of the statement!
   Dr. Smith would like to "impress" his  readers with the idea,
too, that all borrowing, to be honest, must at least be "placed within
quotation marks," but whether that be so or not, "American Me-
dical Ethics" do not demand it, for, to say nothing of others that
might  be  named, we would point him to one of the most recent
works  published in America, being a treatise  on Human Physiol-
ogy, by Jno. C. Dalton, Jr., M. D., 1859, a Philadelphia book, in
which  in the first chapters we find "little else than a recapitula-
tion of Robin and Yerdeil's views on the Constituents of  the hu-
man frame," and what is more, in that comparatively small work,
"he reaches his thirty-fifth page before he even hints at the source
of the views he had adopted!!"   So that it seems Prof. Comings
is in excellent company, and before Dr. Smith can—as an Amer-
ican Allopath—take the mote out of our eye,  he must remove the
beam from his own, and before he preaches "honesty" to us, he
must keep his own hands out of his neighbor's pockets, and con-
sider whether it cannot be made to appear that the less some
people have  to say about "American Ethics", as connected with
the publication of Medical  books, "the more credit  they will en-
joy for common prudence"!
   But can any author lay claim to originality in any thing that is
merely descriptive in our day and time?   Could an entirely orig-
inal work be written on Anatomy or Physiology, or even on the
phenomena presented by the Pathological conditions of the hu-
man body ?  As well might we expect that an original Geography
of the United States could  be written, or that two men could give
the names of the Streets of Macon without  in effect saying pre-
 cisely the same  thing!  but yet Dr. Smith proclaims that "gross
 frauds" are being perpetrated on the public, by giving them such
 information as may be useful to them—and  which he admits to
 be the best that can be given on these subjects—deprived of the
 usual  accompaniments, of antiphilogistic theories, and poisonous
 appliances, that with students not far enough advanced to winnow 
11
the good from the bad might have a deliterious effect upon their
minds and imbue them with those principles that it has taken a
lengthened  period of years to convince even the ffreat Bennett
that they are "erroneous" and which, judging from the  tenacity
with which they cling to him, will never be got rid of, by Dr.Smith
at an!
  Speaking, however of Bennett; reminds us that he also  comes
in for a goodly share of Dr. Smith's abuse, which certainly ought
to be  very consoling to  us and the other parties who share it, seeing
that we are all in such reputable company, but we imagine it will
take more than the doctor's say so to convince the world that the
learned " Professor's theoretical views are not sustained by  clini-
cal facts!" or that he is wrong when he declares "that a revolu-
tion is going on  in the  practice of Medicine ! or that that revolu-
tion points "to the establ ishment of scientific  laws, instead of empi-
rical rules," as well as to "the abandonment of a palliative in favor
of a curative plan of treatment," and that that same "revolution,"
the existence of which Dr. Smith denies, is founded on the "con-
clusion that the principles which led to an anti-philogistic  prac-
tice in acute inflamations are erroneous, since it is found that when
"instead of lowering them the vital powers are supported, audthe
excretion of effete products assisted," the value of  human  life is
increased eight fold, and when  it  is known likewise,  that  "re-
cent success has  been  great, just  in proportion as heroic  reme-
dies have been abandoned," it will be conceded that old things
are passing away and  as Bennett  says, "it is in vain telling us
to adhere to  the routine of our forefathers when the principles
which guided them are known  to  be erroneous."  "But when"
—as he adds—"in addition  to change  in theory,  actual experi-
ence  demonstrates that we are  right,  when modern pathology
and modern practice harmonize with and support one  another,
then it appears to me that  the time has arrived for demonstra-
ting the errors of former teaching, as  well  as  of past empirical
observations."
  But Dr. Smith denies that modern pathology and  practice, as
contended for by Prof. Bennett, do harmonize, and  says that "cli-
nical  facts  do not sustain  his  views."  While  challenging the
strictest enquiry into the  accuracy of the statistics of his 78 cases
which were  treated in open day in the public hospitals,  every
one of which is authenticated with the  name of its reporter in the
hospital books,  Prof.  Bennett  concludes  thus:  "When it  is
shown that of 78 cases of pneumonia which entered  my clinical
wards, only  1 in 26 died, but that of 75 similar cases which enter-
ed the wards of La Charite, under M.  Louis, 1  in 3 died, then I
think it reasonable to conclude that as  in my cases the vital pro-
cesses were furthered and supported, whereas in those of M. Louis
they were diminished or subdued, the great mortality  of 1 in 3
was owing to the treatment, and that such is  a legitimate a pplica- 
12
tion of statistics."   It is needless to say that  this constitutes the
true  difference between Allopathy as understood by Dr.  Smith
and Thomsonism as understood and practiced by us, the one "di-
minishes and subdues" the vital processes, the  other "furthers and
supports" them, and  great though  the difference in result be as
between the treatment pursued by those two gentlemen, it is not
less marked here, we make  bold to say—between Allopathy and
Medical Reform ; so much  so indeed is this the case in some sec-
tions, and so well known is  the fact, that many of the most intel-
ligent planters and farmers  in the country would no more think of
entrusting a bad case of pneumonia to  an Allopathist with his
depleting appliances, than they would of having it to bury if they
called a Reformer with his  invigorating and  supporting means !
and if Dr. Smith is  curious  as to instances he can be pointed readi-
ly to cases in which ruin stared men in the face in consequence of
the loss of patients by the dozen al most, under Allopathic treatment
where the hand of death was staid as if by magic on the appearance
of the true Reformer.  So that whatever Dr. Smith may say to the
contrary, there is a revolution taking place in medicine, and Thom-
sonism if not in name, in very fact, is  in  a fair way of being
"universally adopted," and we have not  the slightest  doubt that
fifty years hence the medical doctrines of the "immortal Thomson,"
whether credited to him or not, will pervade  the world and be
everywhere received as medical truth, and that his identical views
are being expounded and insisted on by the "highest medical au-
thority," hailing from the "highest seat  of  medical  learning"—
the University of Edinburgh, that counts its students by thethou-
sand—is itself a triumph, for whether, for the present, thatgreat
exponent Bennett, be considered the "text book of modern medi-
cine" or not, he is still the occupant of the most advanced position,
medically, in the world it is believed, and acknowledgedly honors
that position by its occupancy; and the facts of the case are so appa-
rent of themselves  that it seems to us that the effort of Dr. Smith
to "impress" his readers with the idea that these plain statements
are not "veritable" but a 'hoax1 and ad captandum' trick'' on our
part, is an attempt on their 'gullibility  not at all  complimentary
to their understanding  or character for common sense, and is so
plain a case of an  attempt at 'trick'ery and 'hoax'ing on his part
that it carries its own 'deceit'ful character indellibly stamped upon
its face!
   While we do not feel ourself specially called on to reply to the
 Doctor's remarks—referring to Prof. Bennett's position,—predica-
 ted  npon his non appreciation of the difference  between the pres-
 ent and the future tense, and  the "trick" of slipping  in  an "is"
 for a "will," in the mas-quotation he made,  (itself an old 'trick ' of
 his,) we may yet remark that the Appendix referred to,—contain-
 ing as it does the objections to the new theory and his  replies  to
 them—but confirms all we said of them and  is perhaps the most 
13
triumphant "vindication " of their truth that is possible to be con-
^1b?oanUTd Cap,able 0f "rational " deductions, and the
fact that Dr. Smith has read them and risen from their perusal "a
mere treater of symptons, a bleeder, and a believer in anti-phlo-
gistic principles and remedies" but proves as we before said, that
he is more incorrigible than we  thought him, and far more con-
ceited or prejudiced than we gave him credit for being "
  But Dr.  Smith thinks he has the majority on his side, which it
appears is  for  him, quite sufficient guarantee of correctness of po-
sition  hence his great objection to the Reform Practice is that it
is not "popular■» and almost half his pamphlet  is devoted to the
purpose  of making that appear, and in  his anxiety to make out
his case, descends to the quotation of anonvmous articles, and pre-
dicates his  statements upon them, regardless of the facts that but
await the opening of his eyes to make them palpable!  The  "ho-
sannas" of the people are necessary to assure him that he is right
it seems, and  as, for the present, these are withheld both from us
and Bennett too perhaps, it  is conclusive proof,  to  him at least,
that both must be indubitably wrong !  What a persecutor such a
person would have been of Harvey who discovered the circulation
of the blood, but whose ideas were not generally adopted by the
medical fraternity for a century ?  Gallileo would have had as lit-
tle mercy from such an  one as he had from the priests! and poor
Wickliffe might have had an extra  torch  applied to him and the
miserable Massachusetts witches would have had nothing to hope
for from such a hand, nor could any one doubt that the slanderer
of the "immortal Thomson" in his grave would have added 'fleas' to
the plague of lice that infested his wintery dungeon! The man who is
governed in his judgment by popular opinion has a hard task mas-
ter, and is ready at  its biding to  be among the Jews the strictest of
his sect,a Catholic among Catholics,a Protestant among Protestants,
a whig among whigs and among tories, the greatest tory of them
all.  Such we  trust the Doctor would not be, but such we gener-
ally find "majority  men " and when we see such  earnest  enquiry,
as to who else  believes,  before the committing step is taken,  sus-
picion is aroused and the inference is drawn that self reliance and
independence  of spirit  are elements greatly lacking  in such a
character.
  In the case of Bennett, the Reviewers give him confidence, and
he therefore pitches in, and wonderful to relate their report "cor-
roborates exactly "  what he said " in relation to the  prevalent dis-
eases of Middle Georgia!" and he is  happy to find the position he
assumed  is  so "fully sustained " " by the  ablest American  and
British authorities !! "   So far so good, but it seems that  in exact-
ly corroborating him they " quote the very language of Dr.  Wat-
son " which appeared in the  July number of a British periodical
as well as later in  the  year  1858 in an American one !!  Does
any body see the tip end of a little mouse's tail just here ?  What 
14
 a wonderful coincidence?  What Watson says in England in July,
 1858, is repeated in America in the same year, and Dr. Smith as-
 sumes positions early in 1859, that are  " exactly  corroborated "
 and  'fully sustained" by parties in Britain who quote Watson's
 "very language"!!!  Ah! Dr. Smith, have you yet to learn that
 "people who live in glass houses should be careful how they throw
 stones?  Having nothing of the weazel  in our composition, how-
 ever, we forbear to "ferret" this matter farther, but it might be
 proper for us to warn Dr. Smith that other people take the Re-
 views as well as he, and  are not  quite  so charitable  as we are;
 for one of  the Allopathic Physicians in this city broadly declared
 in our hearing, that, parts of his articles containing those "corrob-
 orated" and "sustained" positions were  "mere  plagiarisms", but
 not  knowing of ourself, and really not wishing to know whether
 it be so or not, we cannot  say, but  these  coincidences, and claims
 are of his own making and, therefore, legitimate for criticism, and
 with those who can  tell from a little what a great deal means,
 they will  have  their weight, and  at least  give an  idea of the
 means to  vhich " little apples" sometimes betake  themselves
 to keep their heads above the  "tide",  in  order that  they may
 "swim."
 ■  Having answered the challenged "thorough investigation as to
 the truth of his assumed "facts," and having proved them to be
 "any thing in the world but correct," we  may now admit that the
 system of "Reformed Medicine" which we advocate—no matter
 how much  it may have grown since the time of Thomson—is still
 too "lilliputian" for our aspirations, and our classes are  still much
 smaller than we think  they should be, though even  at the num-
 ber stated  by Dr. Smith, 50 or 60, much larger than  they have
 been, even in Macon,  and is, therefore, a singular evidence of
 decline! but as the Doctor wrote about  the time the "Calliope"
 came to town, and of course shortly after the opening of the ses-
 sion, it will not do to take even that statement as true  now; and
 hence we are pleased to say that small though the number be, it
 is smartly  understated, though we have pretty good  reason to
 know that at that particular period, that number "even  could not
 quite be counted in  the Halls of  the Georgia Medical College
 at Augusta, and how many less  at the Colleges in Savannah it
 would be hard to say, so that small though we be, we are still in
 good  company even in Georgia, and we trust that while all we
 little apples" are doing our best to "swim," "big" ones like Dr.
 Smith will  not  try to  discourage  us.   Speaking of decline in
 systems, however, is Dr. Smith aware that on the 31st Dec'r last,
 he, as  an "eminent Allopathic physician of Georgia,"  is quoted
 to prove the decline of Allopathy in a New York paper that is
 not Thomsoman?  I et so it is, and the honor is thus awarded him
of association with the famous bird that did not hesitate to speak
ill of the nest it lived in!                                 r 
15
   Is that the place from which he looks with "contempt" upon all
 a5*U i iim? J\ AlloPathy as he described it so pure that it can
 afford, through  him who so bespattered it, to be contemptuous;
 Does the sneer at Medical Reform sit well upon the countenance
 of him who from personal "observation" declared that Allopathic
 physicians "bled down their patients irrecoverably," accused them
 of "too great precipitancy" in giving drugs, of "aggravating the
 malady," "officious interference," "abuse of trust," -'the reckless
 and excessive employment of physic," "over-dosing," till "the doc-
 tor's heart is made to bleed with anguish and remorse at the mis-
 chief  done," "giving Morphia inconsideratelv," "too free indul-
 gence in  their propensity for dosing, thereby"worrying their pa-
 tients," "dreadfully abusing the powers of their remedies," which
 have been "prostituted" and "abused," and by "profligate" "use"
 "effected only mischief."
   Is it Allopathy that  sits quietly still under such  a torrent of
 abuse, that sneers and is contemptuous? or is it only Dr. Smith
 that airs himself in this way, as the Fault-Finder General and "Fer-
 ret^ in Chief of Medical abuses?   If so, let him consider his own
 position and  remember  that his flourish about "contempt" does
 not  relieve him from the unenviable position in which  his  own
 statements have placed him, and which that 80 page pamphlet so
 graphically exposed;  though if it  really be so "nauseating" that
 he dare not  touch it, we doubt not the community will excuse
 bim from the "task of reviewing" it, but until he does, is. it not
 the judgment of "all readers of recent  pamphlets" that the less
 some people say about  "contempt" for money  challenges, "the
 more credit they will enjoy for  common  prudence," especially
 when these challenges have direct reference to the proof of one's
 own statements!  As to the "gassy" part of the charge, do we not
 put that at rest  by the  amount of bonds we voluntarily assume?
 Dare Dr. Smith do the same, and  thereby test the weight of his
 own statements?  If not, even on that point, then "the less some
 people say of" "gas", "the more credit will be theirs for common
 prudence!"
   In regard to the weakness and  necessities of our position, we
 are quite alive to them, and are ready to admit that it is not near
 so strong as wTe wish to have it, and that there is much yet needed
 to make it all we desire, but we are doing our best to improve
 and  elevate  it, and the success which has  thus far attended our
 efforts  is so encouraging that we shall  persevere, and hope that
 with the assistance of such men as Prof. Bennett, of Edinburgh,
 Doctors Todd and Markham,  of London,  and the "many other
 able and distinguished physicians" who  "essentially agree in our
views," we shall  yet be able to smile (we can almost do it  now,)
at the "contempt" of such "eminent" men as Dr. Smith, who seem
proud of the  Authorities and Books that are "little else" than 
16
"crude compilations of European works," and  who so far from
trying  to elevate their  branch of the Profession, are doing their
best to pull it down.
  While we are not unmindful of the humble source from whence
we  took our rise, we can but glory  in the fact,  and use it as an
incentive to still greater effort "till we reach the goal of that  per-
fection to which other minds are tending and aspiring, and which
Prof. Draper—a really "eminent" American Physiologist—says
must be reached when the new doctrines of life (Thomsonism) are
believed  in, and when  the  present Allopathic practice of Medi-
cine shall have been "revolutionised" /
  But while this is our aim, are not the "eminent" Dr. Smith and
the rest of the Georgia Allopaths frittering away the inheritance
left them by their fathers?  Are  they elevating the standard  of
Medical acquirement?  Are they pursuing a course that is calcu-
lated  to increase  the respect  due to  learning? or are they not
rather doing their best  to depress both? It requires but the state-
ment of a single "fact"—one, too, that is much more "veritable"
than those claimed as such by the  "eminent" Dr. Smith—to show
that such  is the case,  and that is, that in Georgia, the Empire
State of the South, and nowhere else in the wide world, the Allo-
pathic student of nine months' standing may be a graduate!!!
  Is it likely that the intelligence of the nineteenth century will
permit such  proceedings to exist for even the forty years to come
that remain of it, or is  it  not more rational to conclude that they
will be swept away by it "as with the besom of destruction?"
Even now, so "weak-backed" is that "hobby" and so "necessitous"
the "position" of some of its adherents, that on entering a  city
the "Yulgus" ad captandum expedient of soliciting pressly puffs,
like any other "quack" who has pills to sell, has been resorted to,
a practice w7hich, however necessitous the position of medical re-
form, it has  never condescended to, nor has any of its Macon ad-
herents that we know of.  Can the "eminent" champion of Allo-
pathic Medicine and expositor general of "weak-back hobbies'*
say as much ?  Or could it be said that even in this particular the
less some people say of ad captandum "Yulgus" "tricks", the
better w7ould be their credit for common prudence."
  But we have no disposition to press the  Doctor farther, his po-
sition is a difficult one, and therefore we can excuse this last effort
to make the best of it before the country, and  if he could have
arisen without such an  unmitigated  attempt to drag us down, we
should have had nothing  to say against it; as it is,  we but defend
ourself, with feelings for  him, if not of love, at least of that be-
nign description that is said to be a-kin to it, and wish him well,
while we trust that the 'curiosity'  of his Rev. Champion friend is
thoroughly satisfied that even "tables may be turned"  without
spiritual aid!
*