THE METHOD OF OUR WORK, 
NOT FAITH, 
IS THE 
Basis of Organization of Medical 
Societies. 
HY 
C. WESSELHOEFT, M.D., 
President of the American*, Jmfttttie of Homoeopathy. 
Delivered at the Thirty-Second Session, Held at Lake George, 1879. 
PHILAiDE.LPHIA : 
SHERMAN & CO., PRINTERS. 
i 8 8 o. PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS. 
Ladies and Gentlemen: The subjects upon which I would 
offer some reflections are partly derived from events concerning 
this Institute for the past year, and partly from affairs at large. 
I mean the origin and work of the Yellow Fever Commission, 
and the organization of medical societies. 
The special report of the Yellow Fever Commission is in good 
hands, and speaks for itself. It is the origin of this report and 
how it came into the world that I desire to explain to you. 
When we last met, there existed no necessity for such a report. 
So far as we knew7, the health of the country was all that could 
be desired. But in the course of the summer a fearful epidemic 
of yellow fever raged along the southern banks of the Mississippi. 
A commission was soon appointed on the part of the Govern- 
ment, urged by philanthropists, to inquire into the nature of the 
Southern scourge. No physician of our school had a voice upon 
that commission, ignored as they always had been by the domi- 
nant school, who mainly advised the Government in such mat- 
ters. Even the voice and untiring energies of Dr. Verdi, the 
chairman of the Committee on Legislation, did not succeed in ob- 
taining the degree of representation of our school that in the name 
of justice and common-sense it deserved. 
It was in the early part of October, 1878, that appeals were 
addressed to me from various quarters to exert my influence, as 
President of this Institute, in appointing a commission from 
among physicians of our school to examine into the nature of 
yellow fever from our point of view; that is, not only to specu- 
late and theorize upon its hypothetical causes, but to examine 
into and devise, if possible, means for the cure of the disease, 
and methods of its prevention. 
This appeal required no Icngthy-deliberatioii on mv part. I 2 
president’s address. 
had, it is true, no direct authority from the American Institute 
to appoint such a commission, and in the nature of things I could 
not have ; for there was no yellow fever when we last met; the 
calamity arose after our last meeting, and an extra session could 
not be called to decide the matter, for months of valuable time 
would have been consumed. 
Therefore, as the appeal to me was seconded by many voices, 
without dissent, not only by physicians residing in my vicinity, 
but in many remote parts of the United States; as it was sup- 
ported warmly and unequivocally by the officers of this Institute, 
I did not hesitate to appoint the gentlemen whose names were 
suggested to me, particularly as many had had personal experi- 
ence in yellow fever epidemics, and resided in districts that were, 
or had been, visited by yellow7 fever. 
In accordance with the exigency of the case, a brief note, 
dated October 23d, was sent to the gentlemen named in the re- 
port, requesting them to serve, and stating the object of the 
appointment, which was to collect data concerning the prevention 
and cure of yellow fever, and especially with regard to its relation 
to homoeopathic treatment. The commission were to meet as early 
as possible in Hew Orleans, subject to the call of the chairman, 
Dr. W. H. Holcombe; and they did meet on the 2d day of De- 
cember, 1878, and the valuable document which undoubtedly all 
of you have seen is the result of their researches. 
This seems simple and easy, but when I remind you that all 
this was done at the greatest personal inconvenience of all the 
gentlemen appointed, connected with expense, and loss of time 
to many busy and much-tried physicians, I cannot warmly 
enough express my thanks at the purely unselfish readiness with 
which the appointment wras accepted by all, long before the liberal 
offer on the part of Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson had been received. 
To this philanthropic lady the warmest thanks of the Institute 
are due. 
In particular I have to express my personal gratitude to Drs. 
Holcombe, Verdi and Dake for their ready advice, willing co-op- 
eration and promptness of action, to which was mainly due the 
success of the commission. 
And lastly, I have earnestly to appeal to the Institute to give president’s address. 
3 
its prompt and emphatic indorsement to what has been accom- 
plished by its officers, as an act outside of their routine duties, a 
necessity which could not be foreseen, but which demanded 
prompt action. 
During the progress of correspondence and arrangements I 
was made aware that the duties of the President of the Institute 
would not devolve upon me, according to our by-laws, until Jan- 
uary 1st of this year, and that consequently Dr. Burgher was 
really acting officer, and should have made the appointments. It 
was an oversight, not only on ray part, but also on the part of 
those who first appealed to me. I would very gladly have re- 
linquished the business, which, however, had proceeded so far 
that it could not be done over again. On this account Dr. 
Burgher expressed himself satisfied with my explanation, and 
most courteously allowed me to proceed. Whatever satisfaction 
and praise may be due on the part of the Institute for the 
result achieved by the Yellow Fever Commission should be 
shared by Dr. Burgher, the now ex-President of this Institute. 
Let me now turn your attention to a subject which ever since 
the beginning of the Institute has been discussed. It is the basis 
on which our medical societies are organized,. 
The motive for inquiring into this subject is furnished by the 
occasional discussion of a sectarian character, observed here and 
there in our homoeopathic as well as old-school societies. You 
are undoubtedly familiar with the views expressed by different 
factions, in different States, regarding qualifications for member- 
ship. I shall not touch in the least upon special instances any 
further than to remind you that they have existed and still exist. 
But I intend to regard the subject entirely in the abstract, and 
independently of individual and special instances. Let us con- 
sider the subject, not only with regard to its relation to our own 
school, but also in its relations to the rest of the medical world. 
In examining the by-laws of different State and local societies 
to see what qualifications are required for membership in a soci- 
ety devoted to the development and protection of homoeopathic 
practice, we find words something like these: “ The association 
shall be composed of all accredited homoeopathic physicians,” etc. 
“ The candidate must have the degree of doctor of medicine from 4 
president’s address. 
some organized medical school,” etc. (Illinois State Soc.) Or 
the society, like that of the State of New York, being a body 
composed of delegates from local homoeopathic societies, has no 
requirements except those implied in the name homoeopathy, and 
the indorsement of local or county societies. 
Other societies formulate their qualifications for membership 
so as to include “ any physician of good moral character who 
has received the degree of doctor of medicine from some regu- 
larly incorporated college, and who subscribes to the doctrine 
similia similibus curantur,” etc. 
This form is adopted by the Tennessee State Society, and its 
sense, and almost its wording, is also found in the qualifications 
for membership in the State societies of Pennsylvania, Ohio and 
Indiana. Formerly the State society of Massachusetts contained 
a similar clause, only demanding belief in the dogma of similia sim- 
ilibus curantur instead of asking the candidate to subscribe to it. 
The constitution of the Homceopathic Medical Society of the 
County of New York demands as a qualification for membership 
that the candidate, whose requirements should be in accordance 
with the laws of this State, should also practice upon the princi- 
ple, similia similibus curantur, etc. 
The above qualifications for membership, then, are based on 
the conditions that the candidate applying for membership be- 
lieves in, subscribes to, or practices according to the principles of 
homoeopathy. Besides these qualifications there is generally 
another constitutional clause to be found in the “ constitution 
and by-laws” of homoeopathic societies, declaring the object of 
the society to be the advancement of medical science. 
It would seem as if such platforms were liberal and broad 
enough to meet every shade of opinion and practice, to set 
aside and to obviate all dissensions, and to place us in a position 
of strength towards other schools and methods of practice. 
But such, in reality, is far from being the case. Not that fre- 
quent little, or even greater, dissensions have disturbed or are 
likely to disrupt our societies, or permanently to hamper our 
progress; but all our societies, great and small, bear within them- 
selves—in many cases unconsciously—the elements of dissension. 
One of these elements is that according to which a physician president’s address. 
5 
of another school or method of practice, that is, one not believing 
or subscribing to the principles of homoeopathy, cannot, on any 
account, become a member of our homoeopathic societies. Were 
such a one found to have been inadvertently admitted he ought 
to be, and could be, excluded. 
Let us examine this subject briefly. Up to the present day 
old-school societies are excluding and expelling those of their 
members who have either since their admission or afterwards 
adopted homoeopathic practice. Such has been the case in 
every State of the Union. I need only recall to your memory 
Ann Arbor as a strongly illustrative example of that spirit, not 
to mention minor occurrences. We may recall also the more 
ardent struggle undergone within a few years by homoeopathic 
physicians in Massachusetts, who, with heroic fortitude, endured 
expulsion from the old-school State society, not because they 
cared to remain in it, but because they dared that society to 
break their own laws and those of the State and common justice. 
And that society did it. 
In doing so it disclosed all its weaknesses and taught us and 
the world a lesson, namely, how not to organize societies. 
That is, they expelled a number of physicians for “ practicing 
according to a certain ‘exclusive’ theory or dogma, and for be- 
longing to societies whose principles are at variance with the 
society” who expelled those physicians; thus actually and 
virtually, in broad daylight, doing the very thing for which 
they condemned others. 
They neglected, ignored and grossly violated the very prin- 
ciples on which are founded all medical societies: the right to 
discuss, test and examine to the root every medical principle. 
The result was and is,, that we were forced to organize medical 
societies of our own, from which grew journals, hospitals and 
colleges. 
Being driven into the world to shift for ourselves, under no 
tutelage but our own, the position of antagonism in which we 
were placed made us strong in our union; a common interest 
united us to such a degree that we overlooked, once and for all, 
an error of principle: being excluded we became exclusive our- 6 
president’s address. 
selves. We demanded a creed of candidates for admission to our 
societies. 
Of course this was overlooked ; could there ever be a question 
as to who should and who should not be members of our har- 
monious fraternity ? Apparently we were right; but in prin- 
ciple wrong. We should have begun by flinging open our doors 
wide to every honest physician of proper attainments, as was 
first strongly urged by Carroll Dunham. 
The question comes home to us still stronger when we begin to 
test the qualifications of applicants who claim to believe in or to 
practice homoeopathy. The question comes up as to who is a 
homoeopathist ? This has caused more bitter and painful feuds 
than the illiberal aggressions of other schools. 
Here we have a variety of shades of opinion and practice. 
Let me briefly classify them. 
There are those who arc contented to follow the rules of 
homoeopathy as announced by Hahnemann; who follow him 
closely with regard to proving, preparing and administering 
remedies, as well as adhering to the dose recommended by the 
founder of our school as the probable limit — the safest and the 
best. 
Then there are those who practice homoeopathy in every par- 
ticular, but who do not find it practically useful to refine the 
dose to the degree proposed by Hahnemann. 
Those again who transcend the propositions of Hahnemann, in 
regard to the dose, millions of times farther than the former class 
fall short. In this and in all other respects this class of prac- 
titioners claim to follow the master in every particular; but 
cling to his exceptional and casual remarks concerning the dose 
as if these constituted the sum and substance of his teaching. 
Another class of practitioners, while among the first to honor 
the name of the founder of our school, deem it a higher tribute 
to his name to endeavor to perfect that for which the originator 
only claims to have laid the foundation. In this sense they 
prefer not to be ranked as mere worshippers of a man, whose 
practical rules, however far-reaching, they do not recognize as 
absolute, infallible laws, laws without exceptions, laws, the president’s address. 
7 
deviation from which means heresy, deserving contempt and 
punishment. 
Now shall we exercise a censorship in our societies which shall 
decide that a physician can be regarded as a homoeopathist only 
when he adheres closely to the rules of Hahnemann, supposing 
we were justified in forming such a definition? It is 
and still your creeds demand it. Shall we all sign a “declaration 
of homoeopathic principles,” or belief in a method of practice, as 
was lately proposed to us, in order to be enrolled in the “Legion 
of Honor,” as those who have subscribed call themselves ? Your 
creeds seem to demand such a course. Why not follow it, and 
place yourselves under the command of a few who presume to 
rule over the faithful flock of believers? Religions may require 
such a course. No rod of terror, no excommunication or anath- 
ema can terrify the free man of thought. Shall we exclude from 
our societies those who do not unconditionally accept the propo- 
sitions of Hahnemann, especially with regard to the limit of the 
dose? Shall we exclude a physician because he has not yet 
wholly and absolutely adopted those propositions,—has not 
wholly weaned himself from former practices,—and occasionally 
resorts to the traditional treatment of the older school ? Shall 
we exclude or punish a physician whose affiliation with us con- 
sists only in a tentative predilection; who partly acknowledges 
the merits of our method of practice, but timidly stands aloof till 
he feels himself reassured? Lastly, shall we exclude those who, 
from ignorance or conviction, do not choose to associate with 
us? It seems to me their case is very easily disposed of with- 
out explanation. 
But I must say that there are those who have but partially 
espoused our school of practice. A class which contains a waver- 
ing element, exercising a powerful retrograde effect on those who 
would otherwise join us wholly. Inasmuch as they are im- 
perfectly grounded in homoeopathy they misapply it, constantly 
mixing and confusing methods of practice to an incredible degree; 
giving larger doses of powerful drugs than even a rampant 
Galenist would prescribe. All this passes for homoeopathy. 
But such men also practice according to the old school. When 
we have an opportunity to compare this with their homoeopathy 8 
president’s address. 
we are puzzled to discern the difference in a practice arising both 
from imperfect knowledge and an indifferent regard for princi- 
ples. Here we encounter license, rather than liberty; yet a 
certain honesty of purpose to benefit the sick cannot be ques- 
tioned. Liberty of action, claimed by such practitioners, with- 
out doubt, is beyond control of sect or society. It is largely a 
question of medical ethics, and as such will receive judgment. 
Nevertheless the confessions of faith required by most societies 
could be employed to expel or exclude all those classes, or draw 
lines admitting only one or more of them. 
Organizers of our societies have invariably discovered that 
such distinctions of shades of belief were practically useless and 
unjust, because ethically, and, hence, logically, wrong. But gov- 
erned by some prejudice, biassed by some indistinct fear, anxious to 
reconcile all, yet often desirous of pleasing a few, the first con- 
stitutions of our societies were drawn up, and their form has 
remained so ever since, containing within themselves a con- 
tradiction. 
The advancement of medical science in general has been often 
construed as not harmonizing with the purposes of homoeopathic 
societies. The discussion of other methods of treatment has 
often irritated those who prefer the exclusive adherence to homoe- 
opathic principles. The question of the dose has divided physi- 
cians, more than any other, into parties. All questions which 
must remain open till they are determined by agreement, or on 
an absolutely scientific basis. To their consideration our societies 
should be open. Practically they have been so, but the smoul- 
dering spark may burst into a flame of discord at any time. 
How can the danger be best averted? 
The course is simple. The way to overcome the objection of 
exclusiveness is plain enough, and there is no need of subjecting 
ourselves to the just accusation of excluding others, or of justi- 
fying others from excluding us. 
On the other hand, the exclusion of partial adherents of our 
school should no longer be a source of reproach. We cannot 
afford to lose a well-wisher. One who only occasionally pre- 
scribes homoeopathically is a homoeopathist. We must give him 
an opportunity to be wholly one, instead of shutting him out, president’s address. 
9 
vexing him with partisan epithets, and driving him into the 
arms of the older school. 
Let each medical society, great or small, define as precisely as 
it pleases the 'plan of scientific work it proposes to do. Let it do 
so in the place of a vague, ambiguous formula, such as “the ad- 
vancement of medical science.” Let your society in organizing 
state as sharply and clearly as words can state it, how it proposes 
to advance medical science. 
In organizing, a homoeopathic society should clearly state the 
points it desires to perfect, advance and elucidate. For instance, 
let it say: 
“ The development of the Materia Medica hy proving drugs [upon 
the systems of men and animals),” etc. 
“ The perfection of pharmacology, with regard to the most re- 
liable methods of preparation of medicines, the dose,” etc. 
“ The administration of medicines thus proved and prepared, ac- 
cording to the formula (law or rule) similia similihus curantur,” etc. 
“ Accumidation of proofs of the efficacy of the law of similars,” 
etc. 
A society in organizing may stop here, or it may specify still 
more closely. It may add other work as it pleases, in order to 
enlarge its scope of usefulness by proposing to investigate any 
special or all branches of medical science. 
Such work has been and is proposed in the constitutions and 
by-laws of most, if not all, of our societies. As a matter of 
course this opens their doors to old-school practice. 
The cpiestion arises: Must and shall such a contingency be 
avoided ? 
If allowed, will it endanger the plan of homoeopathic work? 
My answer is ; There is no law of ethics or science which could 
exclude such work. It is wholly and entirely a matter of option 
and agreement of what kind of work and how much a society 
wishes to perform. If it will test, explore and investigate the 
whole field of homoeopathy, and add to that extensive and ex- 
haustive researches in other directions, which are not connected 
with homoeopathy, it may do so. But it must be remembered 
that life is short and art so very, very long. Societies may limit 10 
president’s address. 
their work, and thereby alone limit the class and land of their 
members. 
The danger of injuring homoeopathy by the admission of non- 
homoeopathic or anti-homoeopathic discussions lies only in the 
loss of time devoted to the latter. 
The inherent truths of homoeopathy, the rights of men to 
think and practice homoeopathically are inalienable ; they cannot 
be wrenched from us; they will stand just as long as men will 
stand by them, work for them and improve them. 
I have already referred to a “Declaration of Homoeopathic 
Principles,” which many have signed and returned to its author.* 
There is no objection to them ; all of us might safely accept them 
(reserving our right lojudge of clauses 2d and 6th as purely theo- 
retical). But none would consider them exhaustive. As the embodi- 
ment of principles and practical rules many more of equal weight 
might have been added from The Organon. On the other hand, these 
“essential points” might have been cut down to a smaller figure. 
It is impossible to embody the principles of our school in a, brief 
clause or formula of belief. The attempt to do so has met, and 
always will meet, with just objections, for they are cramped and 
distorted in the very act of formulation. But that is not the 
main objection. The great question before us is, What shall a 
society do with such a formula? Shall it merely be the watch- 
word, the parole of a kind of Masonic fraternity ? a countersign 
which is dead and meaningless as soon as friend has recognized 
* Essential Points of the Homoeopathic Doctrine.—The cure of the sick is 
most easily, mildly and permanently effected by medicines that are them- 
selves capable of producing in a healthy person morbid symptoms similar 
to those of the sick. 
The changed and morbid conditions of tissues and organs are results of a 
dynamic disturbance, and not the cause of disease 
The totality of the symptoms, subjective and objective, is the sole indi- 
cation for the choice of the remedy. 
The only proper way to ascertain the sick-making properties of medicines 
is to prove them on the healthy. 
In order to secure the best possible practical results, medicines must be 
adminstered singly, and in a dose just sufficient to cure. 
And local treatment of all kinds in non-surgical cases is not only unneces- 
sary, but is apt to change the location of the disease, and induce dangerous 
complications, and never permanently cures. president’s address. 
11 
friend ? Such is its fate in the form of a creed. As such it 
presupposes perfection, and shuts out research, investigation and 
work. When put in the form of a plan of work, when that plan 
is an order of business, limited only by our strength and time, 
then, I say, such a formula has life in it. Though brief in ex- 
pression, it is like the word of command that moves an array. 
As a creed, not comprehensive enough as a declaration of prin- 
ciples, it becomes a mere countersign; it serves only to distin- 
guish us from our opponents, and there its office ends. 
Now having determined the object and plan of work of a 
society, and having laid out plenty of homoeopathic work, we 
are enabled to invite all to come and help us, without exacting 
an expression of belief—a creed. This would at once place us 
in a firm and just attitude, not only toward our opponents, but 
more particularly toward our friends, and those who are inclined 
to become our friends. The work our society has laid out will 
wholly determine who will join us and work with us. In the 
light of progressive investigation, it will attract; in the form of 
dogma or creed, it will repel every thinking man and woman. 
If homoeopathy is perfected in all its details ; if there are ab- 
solutely no exceptions to the law of similars; if we never fail 
in its application; if our pharmacological methods are perfect, 
and no longer require experimental and clinical research, why, 
then we need no societies at all — they have outlived their use- 
fulness. If they are only so many churches for the propagation 
of a creed, subject to all its schisms, contentions, hatreds and 
persecutions, they are no longer needed among men whose aim 
is to know positively what they can know. 
At the meeting of 1874 certain changes were adopted in the 
constitution of this Institute, which, instead of calling itself an 
institute of homoeopathy, with the object of improving the sci- 
ence of medicine, boldly abolished this ambiguous term, and de- 
clared its object to be the improvement of homoeopathic thera- 
peutics, and, next in order, all other departments of medical 
science; therein following the Massachusetts Medical Society, 
which had adopted a similar clause in 1873, as also the Boston 
Homoeopathic Society. In the practical working of such consti- 
tutions we perceive no evil results. The old-school physicians president’s address. 
12 
have not rushed in, to crush us by superior numbers. They 
stand in the light of exclusiveness, while our doors are open to 
them. If they come, the work is laid out for them. 
I have dwelt at length upon a topic which may seem anti- 
quated. As far as the liberal spirit of our physicians is con- 
cerned, it may seem old; but there is something new in it till 
the matter is fairly understood and the true attitude assumed. 
Now let us turn to the business laid out for us. In proceed- 
ing upon its course let me beseech you to be patient with my 
shortcomings, and accept my promise to do the best I am able.