[Reprinted from Detroit Review of Medicine, October, 1878.] 
REVIEW OF PROF. PALMER’S STATEMENT RESPECTING THE 
RELATIONS OF HIMSELF AND COLLEAGUES TO 
HOMEOPATHY IN THE UNIVERSITY. 
Ann Arbor, Mich., September 20, 1875. 
Editors of the Detroit Review of Medicine and Pharmacy: 
Gentlemen : Under the influence and pressure of the facts 
recently brought to the notice of the profession through their recog- 
nized and legitimate organs, the faculty of the “ old school ” in the 
medical department of the University have felt themselves called 
upon to publish a statement of what they conceive to be the exact 
state of facts in respect to the degree of their connection with the 
fragmentary faculty of the college of homeopathy (so called). 
It will doubtless have struck you, as well as most other members 
of our profession, with surprise, that upon a question of purely 
medical ethics, the faculty should have resorted to the unprofes- 
sional expedient of appealing to the laity, thus evidently fearing or 
distrusting the judgment of their compeers, who alone are compe- 
tent to weigh the testimony and appreciate the bearing of the facts 
presented. 
It is also a fact of curious interest to the profession that in thus 
addressing themselves to the laity, they have elected as their organ 
the Detroit daily that has rendered itself prominent as the special 
advocate of the claims and pretensions of homeopathy, and in 
denouncing as intolerant and bigoted those who have expressed 
opinions in opposition to the adopted plan of professional amalga- 
mation. 
It is not intended to follow the “ statement ” of the faculty 
through their lengthy essay, which, considered as an address to the 
regular profession, must be regarded as “ stale and unprofitable,” 
apparently intended to divert attention from the true questions at 
issue, by the introduction of a large mass of irrelevant matter, and 
the display of loyalty on questions not involved in the discussion. 
We propose to confine ourselves chiefly to the main question, whether 
the faculty of the “ old school,” while denouncing homeopathy and 
its practitioners in the abstract, have not lent themselves to the 
promulgation of the dogmas and advancement of the interests of 
homeopathy, by becoming co-educators of a class of homeopathic 
students, and thus throwing discouragements in the path of the 
graduates in scientific medicine, and rendering the struggle for 
existence more arduous and unremunerative. 
As preliminary to an examination of the statement of the faculty 
on this point, we beg leave to offer a few historical data bearing 2 
upon the present attitude and claims of the faculty. As correctly 
intimated by Deau Palmer, prior to the current year, the medical 
faculty have hitherto exerted whatever influence they possessed 
with the Board of Regents and the Legislature to prevent the intro- 
duction of homeopathy into the department of medicine and sur- 
gery in any form, and especially in such connection with the “ old 
school ” as would involve dishonor to themselves, and bring dis- 
grace upoii the department with which they were associated. In 
this they claim to have been actuated by a conscientious regard to 
what the interests of the pi'ofession and humanity demanded, and 
the success of their efforts depended mainly upon their recognized 
honesty of purpose, and steadfast but respectful persistence in 
effort. But, alas! a fatal defection occurred in the ranks of the 
faculty; a grave change took place in the sentiments of some of its 
members. 
It will be recollected that about the middle of the session of the last 
Legislature, a bill was introduced into the Senate, drawn up by 
one of the most prominent homeopathic doctors, asking an appro- 
priation of six thousand dollars for the establishment of a complete 
college of homeopathy in such city or village of the State, as would 
contribute most liberally to the expenses involved in such location, 
Ann Arbor being excepted. In this form the bill passed the Sen- 
ate with little opposition. 
Within a day or two after the introduction of this bill and prior 
to its passage in the Senate, a meeting of the medical faculty was 
called by two of the oldest members, at which they proposed that 
the faculty should intimate a willingness to make some concession 
to the homeopaths by which they might be allowed to acquire the 
long sought for connection with the University. This proposition 
was negatived by the majority of the faculty, chiefly on the ground 
that the circumstances called for no concession. Near the close of 
the session, the bill passed the House in a modified form, author- 
izing the Board of Regents to locate the new school at Ann Arbor. 
The faculty were again convened, and requested to intimate an 
acceptance of theactof the Legislature, but hesitated to express any 
definite opinion. The member of the faculty at whose request the 
faculty had been convened went immediately to Lansing, to co- 
operate with a member of the Board of Regents, to procure the 
passage of some appropriation bills for the hospital and college of 
dentistry, which, from opposition of the homeopaths, had previously 
failed. A public announcement was made by a Regent that the 
board would accept the appropriation and carry out the law. 
Whereupon the desired appropriations were promptly made, and 
assurance privately given by the friends of homeopathy in the Leg- 
islatu re that any other appropriation would be made if the med- 
ical faculty would cease to offer opposition. 
A few weeks later the faculty were convened by the request of 
Regent Rynd, and his plan of organization of the homeopathic 3 
school was submitted to them. Every member of the teaching 
faculty but one being present, it received their assent. Thus en- 
dorsed by the teaching faculty, it was soon after adopted by the 
Board of Regents. 
The minutes of the board contain not the slightest trace of any 
dissent on the part of the faculty, not the least intimation of any 
protest. If the fragment of a faculty, dignified for ulterior pur- 
poses by the name of a homeopathic medical college, were in 
reality as distinct and independent as the faculty of the “ old 
school ” now claims, it would not need such a labored defense and 
apology as is now deemed necessary. Its defense would have in- 
hered in its constitution, and appeared upon the very face of it. 
Prior to the last act of the board, through which the plan was car- 
ried to its completion by the appointment of the homeopathic pro- 
fessors, the faculty of the “ old school ” were urged to use their 
influence with the board to induce them to appoint a full corps of 
professors, and thus make the homeopathic school, in fact, what it 
is now merely in name, a separate and independent college, but 
there is no evidence of any effort in that direction. That such was 
the intention of the Legislature there seems to be satisfactory evi- 
dence. We quote from a letter from a prominent member of that 
body, who advocated and voted for the bill. “ It was the intention 
to establish a complete school of homeopathy by the bill that pas- 
sed the Legislature at its last session.” And again, “ If the Reg- 
ents do otherwise than contemplated in the bill, they do great in- 
justice to those who voted for it, to yourself, and to the other 
members of the faculty.” And from another member who also 
voted for it: “ The original bills without doubt contemplated six 
professors with a salary of one thousand dollars each.” In the bill, 
as it finally passed, no essential change was made except in regard 
to its location at Ann Arbor, and authorizing the Board of Regents 
to expend the money for the purpose expressed in the act, and for 
no other purpose. This appropriation was made perpetual. Now, 
the salaries offered to the newly added professors is 1,800 dollars 
each, for a term of six months (which is 500 dollars more than 
any member of the faculty of the “ old school ” ever received for 
a single course of lectures) leaving a balance unexpended of 1,400 
dollars. The incidental expenses (limited, of course, to the first 
year) for preparing a suitable lecture room is not estimated to 
exceed 1,000 dollars, and, shared by the dental school, will doubt- 
less be more than paid by the matriculation fees of the students of 
the schools of dentistry and homeopathy. Whether the balance 
is to be distributed among the faculty of the “ old school,” as res- 
ponsible authority suggests, or employed for other purposes not 
connected with the homeopathic college (so called), it is perhaps 
more appropriate for the authorities of the State to enquire. 
Waiving the mention of other historical data for the present, we 
proceed to examine some of the statements of the faculty in regard 4 
to the relations of the old and the new schools in the department 
of medicine and surgery. We use the term department advisedly, 
and in conformity with its use in the “ Calender,” prepared under 
the supervision of the president, whose literary accuracy needs no 
endorsement, as designating a primary division "of studies based 
upon the nature of the studies pursued, and in contrast with the 
loose and vague employment of it in the “ statement,” in which it 
is applied indiscriminately to every course of study of whatever 
grade of subordination. Thus we should have a department of 
urinalysis in the department of chemistry, in the department of 
literature, science and the arts. 
On the contrary it is well understood that whatever pertains to 
the subject of law, belongs to the department of law, and what- 
ever pertains to the subject of medicine, whether allopathy, homeo- 
pathy, hydropathy, dentistry or eclecticism, pertains by the nature 
of things, as well as by established literary usage to the depart- 
ment of medicine and surgery; any other use of the term, whether 
by design or otherwise, leads to confusion in the minds of those not 
accustomed to the strict and appropriate use of language. 
In the “ statement ” of the faculty, of the twelve pages occupied, 
less than one is devoted to the consideration of the main points at 
issue, and to give them the benefit of their own language, we quote 
from the last number of the Peninsular Journal: “The homeo- 
pathic college created under an act of the Legislature, essentially 
different from any acts in regard to homeopathy previously passed, 
which the faculty had so strenuously opposed, and which the 
Kegents had so constantly declined to carry into effect, is entirely 
distinct in its organization and name from the ‘ department of 
medicine and surgery’ (meaning the old school in the medical 
department). No homeopathic professors, as previous acts pro- 
vided for, are placed in the medical department (old school), but 
a separate college established ; the two faculties never meet in 
joint sessions, the lectures are given in separate and distant build- 
ings, the students of each are registered in separate books, under 
different titles, and are to appear in the catalogue under different 
headings and in different places. The diplomas to be granted are 
different in title and character ; those of the homeopathic students 
are to be designated as homeopathic, the names of none of the 
faculty of the department of medicine (old school) are to go upon 
them, and of course the names of the faculty of the homeopathic 
college are not to go upon those of the other department. The 
faculty of the college of medicine and surgery do not recommend 
for graduation, and have no responsibility whatever in sending 
forth homeopathic students, or testifying to their fitness to become 
members of the medical profession. But the students of the 
homeopathic college have the privilege of receiving instruction in 
the college of medicine and surgery (old school) on anatomy, chem- 
istry, and all the branches excepting those on ‘ practice of medi- 
cine’ and * materia medica,’ and they are to be examined in each 5 
department of study by those who teach them, and are to have 
their knowledge or want of it in those departments certified to. 
If the student becomes a proficient in chemistry, anatomy, etc., the 
simple fact is stated, while no intimation is given that he is qualified 
to practice medicine, or to be a proper associate of medical men.” 
We have already shown that the act of the Board of Regents by 
which the homeopathic college (so called) was created, had been, 
previous to its adoption, submitted to the faculty of the “old 
school,” and accepted by them. 
In reference to the appointment of one or two homeopathic pro- 
fessors, wre beg to say that by no prior act of the Legislature did 
they assume to dictate to the board any arrangement of the duties 
of the new professors, any connection with or separation from the 
school already established in the department of medicine and sur- 
gery, but simply that they should be included in and embraced 
by that department, leaving entirely to the discretion of the board 
to make such arrangements as might be deemed conducive to the 
interests of the University. Hence they felt themselves at liberty 
under the act of 1867, granting conditional aid to the University, 
to proceed to organize a “ school of homeopathy in the department 
of medicine ; ” to enact that the lectures should be delivered after 
the close of the term in the then existing school in the department, 
and it was at one time suggested that the lectures should be deliv- 
ered in the chapel of the literary department of the University. 
It was never contemplated to require under any previous act of 
the board, that the students of the “ old school ” should attend 
the lectures of the homeopathic professors as a condition of gradua- 
tion ; nor would the homeopathic students have been required to 
attend the lectures on “ practice and materia medica ” in the regular 
school, as an essential condition for a diploma; all this was left to 
the discretion of the board, yet the medical faculty urged most 
strenuous objections to the entire plan on the ground that it in- 
volved the necessity then, as now, that three-fourths of their corps 
of instructors should become practically united with the homeo- 
pathic professors in qualifying the class of homeopathic students 
for the degree of homeopathic M. D. 
But the teaching faculty insists that “ the two faculties never 
meet in joint sessions, and the lectures are never given in the same 
building ; ” they might have added writh equal pertinency that the 
two faculties are not required to ride in the same hack to church, 
or visit the theater in company. Must the faculty conceal the 
fact that an essential part of the instruction in the regular school 
is received in the laboratory, a building removed from the medical 
college proper ? Do they ignore the fact that the chemical lectures 
to the literary classes have always been delivered remote from the 
buildings designated as the literary department, and yet has not 
the chemical professor always been a member of the literary fac- 
ulty ? What puerility. 
But again it is claimed that the names of none of the faculty of 6 
the “ old school ” are to go upon the diplomas of the homeopathic 
graduates, nor, of course, they say, are the names of the homeo- 
pathic professors to go upon the diplomas of the graduates of the 
“ old school ” in the department. Here it will be observed that it 
is distinctly asserted by implication, that the names of the faculties 
of the two schools do go on the diplomas of their respective classes. 
But the Regents, in the ninth section of the homeopathic act, dis- 
tinctly declare, that “ From and after the present University com- 
mencement, degrees shall be conferred as provided for by the 
Regents of the University, but all diplomas from every department 
shall be signed only by the President and Secretary, and shall have 
the corporate seal of the University attached.” As we do not 
intend to charge the faculty with intentional equivocation, or with 
making an attempt “ to palter with us in a double sense,” we leave 
the reconcilement of the discrepancy to the sagacity of your 
readers. 
Hitherto the diploma has been distinctly a certificate of qualifi- 
cation of the graduates, given by the faculty, their teachers, for the 
joint benefit of themselves and the public. Do not the faculty 
know that this ninth section of the homeopathic act was expressly 
designed to shield the majority of the faculty from an humilia- 
ting self-conviction of complicity in the education of homeopathic 
doctors as such ? Else, why was it made a part of this act, and evi- 
dently made to apply to the other departments to save appearances ? 
But again, and this is not the least important point in discussion, 
the faculty assert that the students of the homeopathic college 
have the privilege of attending the lectures in the college of medi- 
cine and surgery (the old school) on anatomy, chemistry, surgery, 
physiology, obstetrics, ophthalmology, and in practical anatomy, in 
short, on all subjects there taught, except those on “ practice and mat- 
eria medica.” Now, in the ordinary use of language, a privilege 
implies the right of acceptance or rejection, but is it so in respect 
of the requirements of the class of homeopathic students? On 
referring to the fourth section of the act of the Board of Regents 
we find the following, viz., “ section 4 : ” “ Students entering the 
homeopathic college shall receive instruction in the now existing 
medical department (old school) in all branches not provided for 
by the chairs established above ” (homeopathic practice, and mat- 
eria medica). 
The significance of the imperative “ shall receive,” which the fac- 
ulty seem incapable of distinguishing from a mere privilege, will 
become more impressive by referring to the seventh section of the 
same act, viz., “ section 7 : ” “ Every professor in the medical 
department (old school) ©f the University, and also in the homeo- 
pathic medical college, shall, upon the completion of the required 
course of study, and upon the students giving the necessary evidence of 
professional scholarship, furnish such student with a certificate to 
that effect; the Deans of the respective faculties shall report to the 
President, who shall present such reports to the Board of Regents.” 7 
Need anything be more explicit ? It is distinctly required of 
the members of the regular faculty to examine the homeopathic 
candidate for a diploma, to give him a certificate of standing (or, 
in other words, his vote) to be presented to the homeopathic Dean, 
by him to be transmitted to the President, accompanied with a 
statement of the aggregate vote he has received from his teachers 
of both faculties, and the standard adopted by them as the criterion 
of qualifications for graduation, which certificate is merely a dodge 
to avoid the necessity of using the word “recommend,” but is 
obviously, to all intents and purposes, the same in effect. It is not 
to be presumed that a body of non-medical gentlemen would 
assume to pronounce upon the qualifications of medical students 
without the judgment of their teachers of both schools. 
The same examinations are to be made, the same form of certi- 
ficate of standing to be given by the same teachers to the candi- 
dates for graduation of both classes, with the exception of the profes- 
sors of practice and materia medica. If, therefore, as the faculty 
affirm, they do not recommend the homeopathic student, and are 
not responsible for his graduation, neither do they recommend, and 
are not responsible for the graduation of the students in the old 
school, the same rule of proceeding being applied to both classes. 
Is it worthy of the dignity of the authorities of a great institution 
to adopt, and the faculty to apply, such a mere quibble? If fur- 
ther evidence of the necessary and intimate union of the three col- 
leges now constituting the medical department were needed, it 
could be found frankly admitted in the announcement of the 
dental college, there being here no reason of concealment. After 
referring to the legislative act making the necessary appropriations, 
the faculty go on to say: “ The Board of Regents at once took 
measures to secure the objects contemplated, by making the nec- 
essary appointments of professors besides those furnished by the 
medical college, where all students of dentistry (homeopathy) will 
attend lectures and receive instruction jointly with the medical 
class.” In view, therefore, of the distinct statements in the plan 
of organization of the homeopathic school, and the necessary conse- 
quences that flow from it, it is believed the following tabulated 
arrangement will exhibit at a glance the degree of fusion of the 
old and new schools, together with their annnal outcomes in the 
medical department: 
CORPS OF TEACHERS, OR FACULTY. 
Prof, of Anatomy. 
Prof, of Chemistry. 
Prof, of Physiology. 
Prof, of Surgery. 
Prof, of Obstetrics. 
Prof, of Ophthalmology. 
Prof. Horn. Theory and Practice. 
Prof. Horn. Materia Medica. 
Prof. Reg. Practice of Medicine. 
Prof. Reg. Materia Medica. 
OUTCOME. 
Regular Graduates. 
OUTCOME. 
Homeopathic Graduates. 8 
But apparently not satisfied with a discursive statement of the 
general relations of the regular profession to the homeopaths, and 
a self-laudatory intimation hardly justified by the experience of the 
past, that in the “hand to hand contest,” looming upon their hori- 
zon, their opponents are to be utterly demolished, they seek to les- 
sen the force of the opinions of Prof. Gross in relation to the case 
before us, by attributing the sober judgments of a highly cultured 
gentlemen of three score years to mere juvenile impulses, and mak- 
ing a garbled quotation (perhaps from lapse of memory) give a 
false coloring to his opinions. We feel ourselves compelled to correct 
this error by quoting from the letter. Referring to a letter written 
several years ago to the faculty (the Dean) he writes, “ At least 
one of your colleagues knows my opinion about homeopathy and 
the disgrace of being connected with a school in which it is taught 
as a branch of medical education.” It would seem, therefore, that 
the mere impulses of this venerable gentleman must be of a very 
persistent character. And again, “In this way you will be com- 
pelled to mix yourselves up with an organization for which every 
member of the regular profession has a sovereign and immitigable 
contempt.” The venerable professor will probably pardon this 
assault upon his reason and judgment in consideration of the pat- 
ronizing endorsement by the faculty of the the general purity and 
correctness of his professional sentiments, especially as the dispar- 
ity in age must add great weight to the endorsement. The fac- 
ulty are fortunate in procuring the solicited opinions of Prof. A. 
Flint, Sr., and Dr. Marion Sims, whose views on questions of profes- 
sional ethics, when based on a correct appreciation of the subject 
presented, are entitled to very respectful consideration. We have 
only to suggest that if the letter from the Dean, that drew forth 
these opinions, was accompanied with such a statement of the case 
as that the fallacies of which we have endeavoured to expose, we 
are not surprised at the form in which the replies are given, for if 
the old and new schools in the department of medicine and sur- 
gery are in reality as separate as they are in name, and that only, 
there can be no doubt of the correctness of their opinions; but if, 
on the other hand, the so-called two faculties are, as we think we 
have shown, practically but one, then we think the voice of the 
regular profession will not sustain the distinguished gentlemen 
whose opinions the faculty have quoted. 
And now, while making no appeal on a question of purely med- 
ical ethics to the laity, and indulging in no spirit of defiance of the 
deliberate opinions of our professional brethren, we await their 
decision, confident that their “sober second thought” will be 
the mature judgment of a profession conscious of its own rights 
and honor, and disposed to maintain them, 
Very Respectfully, 
A. S. 
* The bracketed phrases in quotations from the statement are our own. FURTHER FACTS AND OPINIONS RESPECTING THE SITUATION 
AT THE MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL. 
The following extracts are given because some of the facts 
presented are new, and because the opinions, as well as the facts, 
are presented by one who has had the most abundant opportunity 
for knowing the exact truth, and has no possible reason for mis- 
representing it. The extracts are from a letter published in the 
Medical Record, September 18th, 1875, by Dr. F. H. Gerrish, who 
for the past two years has occupied the chair of physiology and 
materia inedica in Michigan University. After detailing the his- 
torical part of this miserable affair, to the time when the Board 
of Regents had accepted the money with which to establish a 
homeopathic medical college, he says: 
“ Two plans for the details of the expenditure were brought 
prominently forward. One, proposed by Professor Sager, looked 
to the establishment of a homeopathic school, on a distinct and 
independent basis. As has just been stated, the six thousand dol- 
lars, and the fees of the homeopathic students, would not cover 
the expenses of a school with a six months’ course and as many 
teachers as the regular school has; hut, by adopting a four 
months’ course, which is the usual period in other homeopathic 
colleges, it would be entirely within the limits of practicability to 
appoint a full corps of six professors, and give to each member 
one thousand dollars, without any disparagement to the new fac- 
ulty. They would thus avoid inevitable collusions, the strifes and 
distracting doubts among students and faculties, arising from 
opposite teachings, and relieve the faculty of the old school of the 
grave responsibility of employing their talents and experience as 
teachers, and yielding to their opponents the prestige of an old 
and well-established regular school, and of thus directly promot- 
ing a school of dogmatism, which, in common with nine-tenths of 
the profession the world over, they believe to he false in principle, 
and prejudicial to the best interests of humanity. 
“ This proposition seems to have received little attention and no 
favor, presumably on account of homeopathic opposition. 
“ The other plan, and that adopted by the regents, was to estab- 
lish a homeopathic college, with a faculty consisting of the presi- 
dent of the University as official head, and two professors: one to 10 
teach the theory and practice of medicine, and the other materia 
medica and therapeutics. The announcement says : ‘ To instruc- 
tion in general chemistry, anatomy, organic and applied chemis- 
try, physiology, ophthalmology, otology and practical anatomy, 
surgery, obstetrics, and diseases of women and children,” the 
homeopathic students “ will attend the lectures on those subjects in 
the Department of Medicine and Surgery. While in attendance 
on such lectures, they shall be entitled to all the privileges 
accorded to students in said department, and shall conform to all 
requirements of said department, so far as they apply to the 
branches which they pursue.’ 
“ Thus, since the same professor in the regular school teaches 
materia medica and physiology, it appears that the homeopathic 
student will receive instruction from every member of the old 
faculty, excepting only the professor of practice. They receive 
the sacred promise of an equal participation in all the facilities 
afforded by the University, which includes the daily lecture room 
quizzes of the instructors in the old department. These professors 
will likewise examine them in the studies of their respective chairs 
at the end of the course, as they do the regular candidates for the 
degree, and give certificates of their proficiency, which will be 
used in determining their fitness to practice medicine homeopath- 
ically. 
** If this condition of affairs is accurately described by the 
words of your official correspondent, in the issue of the 24th of 
July, when he speaks of the sehools as ‘distinct and independent 
departments of the University,’ then must most intelligent mem- 
bers of our profession learn a new definition of the word ‘ inde- 
pendent.’ It is true that no professional association in faculty 
meetings is required by this arrangement, as by that law which 
excited the regents to a twenty years’ war with the Legislature; 
but to what extent are most of the faculty giving less aid and 
comfort to their old enemy, than if the act of 1873 had been 
enforced, and they had retained their chairs? If the regular 
school were to suspend operations altogether, what would become 
of the new and ‘independent’ school, with its ‘faculty’ of two 
professors and a non-medical figure-head ? The answers to these 
questions will give one an idea of the actual practical relation of 
the two schools, and the necessary dependence of one upon the 
other. 
“ Affairs being in this state, it is a matter of surprise and 
regret to very many of the most thoughtful men in the profession, 
that the members of the old faculty should not resign their pro- 
fessorships. Those who know them well, however much deploring 
their decision, are willing to believe that they retain their places 
in obedience to a conviction that the present is the worst pos- 
sible for homeopathy, and will result in its downfall. In contrast 
with their course, the venerable Dr. Sager, emeritus professor of 11 
obstetrics, gynaecology and paediatrics, who has for years been dean 
of the medical faculty, believing that the plan adopted compro- 
mised the professional honor of the faculty, promptly resigned his 
office, for which act he has been roundly abused in certain quar- 
ters, and as cordially applauded by most of those who have 
appreciated the precise situation. Professor Gross, in a letter to 
Professor Sager, commending his determined attitude, remarks 
that, in his opinion, ‘ the American Medical Association and all 
our colleges would unquestionably place the medical department 
of your University under the ban, and cease to recognize your 
pupils.’ While some may hesitate to subscribe wholly to this 
view, few, if any, will deny that it is the duty of the profession to 
sternly rebuke the government of the University for its action in 
this wretched business, and to display their disapprobation by 
warning students against a school whose diploma has been so 
depreciated, that winning it cannot be esteemed a rational object 
of ambition, and which has a faculty, ‘two-thirds of whose mem- 
bers,’ as that grand old scholar and gentlemen, Dr. Sager, tersely 
puts it, * are silent partners in a homeopathic firm of teachers.’ ” 
The following extract, from the Boston Medical and Surgical 
Journal, September 9th, 1875, is of interest to some of our read- 
ers, as indicating the tide of thought which, in some quarters, is 
arising respecting the policy at the medical school of Michigan 
University: 
“ The disturbance caused by the ‘ inflation policy ’ of the Legis- 
lature of Michigan, in forcing a so-called homeopathic department 
into the regular school, has reached the correspondence stage, so 
that we may hope the end is at hand. The only advantage to be 
hoped for from the letters, is that the profession may be stirred 
up to take a firn5 position in the matter. Nothing is to be gained 
by temporizing; if the faculty does not appreciate that no com- 
promise with quackery is possible, they will find out their error when 
it may be too late to repair it. ***** * 
“ This affair, let it end as it may, is of great importance, as it 
points to a moral that the profession at large should profit by. 
Some years ago a ring endeavored, happily without success, to 
establish a national university under government control, and we 
occasionally hear suggestions of State boards to confer licenses to 
practice. Let it be understood, once for all, that professional 
honor is too precious to be made one of the prizes of political 
contests. The theory, as well as the practical working of our 
political system, forbids us to consider government as a kind 
parent in whom we may trust. On the contrary, it can be kept 
pure only by the strongest and most persistent efforts, and a 
moment’s inattention may give the intriguer years of advantage. 
A Legislature may be respectable one year, and the reverse the 12 
next, or if not the next, yet sooner or later; and it would be as 
futile as unbecoming for us to pit ourselves against the quack in 
lobbying and bribing. Professional affairs are safe only in pro- 
fessional hands. Let us keep them there.”