4m mm a ■'■'■..... UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WASHINGTON, D. C. GPO 16—67244-1 ?> r Ti ±$ (\ £^m &smwwR TO *,-■-£ A PAMPHLET ENTITLED "Strictures on My. Tattisoi^s Teply to cer- tain Oral ana Written Criticisms, BY W, GIBSON," M. D. Professor of Surgery in the university of Pennsylvania. BY GRANVILLE SHARP PATTISON, ESQ. * A FELLOW OF THE nOTAL COLLEGE OF SCUGEOlSrS, 11TD ME>IB£B OF XHS MEDICO- VJ CHIUCllGICAL 80CIETTOF LOKDON,, /| Member of the Wfernerian Society of Matunl History of Edinburgh. CorrespondtngMeniber ** of the Societe Philomatique and Societe. JMcdicale d'Bir.ulation ot Paris Member of the .» ' Facuh^ of Pbyskvaii«,and &tf^ons, andlate ^rtfesisor of Anatomy, Physiology, and burgery, yS in the And#Sonla!n University, Glasgow, and., • ""'. ■ ■ '&' ' PRF.SKKT PBOFESSOn OPBUKOERr 15 THE UIJIVERSITT OF atAttYLAXl). 's // J/. Jffi^£. 6£Cx^i*u* ^yky^c^ij '"'*.i,vtt..*^ &m &SF©w®a TO A PAMPHLET ENTITLED "Strictures on Mr. Tatiison^s ve^Vy to cer- tain Oral ana Written Criticisms, BY W. GIBSON," M. D. Professor of Surgery in the university of Pennsylvania. BY GRANVILLE SHARP PATTISON, ESQ. FELLOW OF THE ROTAL COLLEGE OF SUHGEOWS, AND MEMBER OF THE MEDICO- CHIRURGICAL SOCIETY OF LOKDON. Member of the Wemerian Society of Natural History of Edinburgh. Corresponding Member of the Societe Philomatique and Societe Medicale d'Eniulation of Paris. Member ot tne Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, and late Professor of Anatomy, Physiology, and Surgery, in the Andersonian University, Glasgow, and PRISEHT PROFESSOR OF SURGERT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MAlllflASr: ■ ;'■ tq- BALTIMORE: PRINTED BY RICHARD J. MATCHETT. 1820. AN ANSWER, &c. &c. «Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew ting at the King's Gate.......Esther, Chap. v. Ver. sir In the characters sketched in the holy volume, there is an expression of truth and justness which most satisfactorily demonstrates, that it is the composition of that omniscient Being who knoweth all things, and to whom the secrets of all men's hearts are open. Whether it exposes the nobler failings of humanity, or, as in the passage from which our motto is taken, lays open to us the inward workings of jeal- ousy, envy, malice, and the meaner feelings of our nature, still there is the same truth in the description, the same vig- our in the conception, and the same reality in the colouring. We are told that Haman, the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, was honoured by the king; who set his seat above all the princes that were near unto him; and that all the king's servants bowed to him, with the exception of Mordecai the Jew. We are further assured, that his riches were im- mense and his children many, and that, although he had neither talents nor merit to entitle him to such gifts, there was giv- en to him all that the eye could lust after, and all that the heart could desire; yet, because one man lived who would not humble himself before him, in the bitterness of his spir- it he cxelaimed, "all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate." The lesson taught in this passage is easily read; it teaches us, that although an undeserving character may, from acci- 4 dental causes, obtain unmerited distinctions, that still these honours avail him nothing, for a sense of his own unworthi- ness torments him, and makes him look with envy and jeal- ousy on his cotemporaries. It is not my intention in answering Dr. Gibson's pamphlet, entitled "Strictures &c. &c." to enter into a full, and elabo- rate, defence of my opinions, as they relate to the operation of Lithotomy.* Although he has endeavoured to give to his es- say a learned dress, its masquerade garb is so ill made, and so inartificially arranged, that every member of the profession, can at once discover that there is nothing of science in its pa- ges;—that it breathes onlj the vindictive spirit which dictated the disgraceful letters of Aristides;—the same weakness which gave birth to the silly criticism signed W. Had the question therefore, rested ouly with the profession, I should never have taken the trouble to answer Dr. Gibson's Strictures, but, ks these have been most widely, and sedulously circulated for the purpose of attacking my reputation, and, through me, of injuring the university with which I have the honour to be connected, I feel myself bound to expose the falsehood of the charges which have been brought against me. It is very true that the unhandsome, and unprofessional conduct, of the person advancing these, remove in a great measure all cred- ence and force from his statements;—it is evident that they are made, not from a love of truth and science, but, from a malignant and unworthy feeling of jealousy. The author has not heretofore with openness and boldness, attempted to injure me; but by the constant whispering of malicious state- *I am preparing for the press a Volume on the subject of Lithotomy, *$: which I shall enter into a full detail of the surgical question. 5 ments, which he himself knew to be without foundation, and by newspaper anonymous scribbling, he has, ever since my settlement in this country, endeavoured to rob me of that which, to every man of sensibility, is the dearest and most cherished of his possessions;—character. It is only now, when dragged from his concealment, and forced before the public, that he has had the manliness to affix his name to any of his scurrilous attacks. I feel too much confidence, in the rectitude of my moral, and the justness of my pro- fessional principles, to dread the puny efforts made to hurt me by my antagonist, but 1 remember the observation of my lord Bolingbroke, "that if calumny is laid on boldly, even by the most worthless minion of society, there is a risque that some of it will adhere," and therefore, although I feel the most heartfelt contempt for the author of the strictures, I refute them. The accusations adduced by Dr. Gibson may all be class- ed under the following heads: 1st. That I have been the aggressor. 2nd. That I have been guilty of a literary piracy. 3d. That I have made incorrect statements. 4th. That I have no professional reputation. In my answer I shall, for the sake of perspicuity, take up the consideration of each of these divisions, separately, and [ trust I shall not only be able clearly to prove that these charges are entirely unfounded as they relate to myself, but, on the contrary, that my accuser has himself been guilty of the very crimes he has had the hardihood to impute to me. In following the arrangement I have adopted, I am in the first place led to the refutation of the charge, that I have 6 been the aggressor. After reading Dr. Gibson's pamphlet with great attention, I have been unable to discover one ar- gument brought forward by its author, which tends in the slightest degree, to substantiate this accusation, with which he commences. He "hopes, by incontrovertible evidence? to prove every thing he asserts against me," yet neither di- rect nor circumstantial proof is adduced by him in support of this very heavy charge. The only facts, indeed, which have the most distant bearing upon it, are: 1st. The pitiful com- plaint made by him, that "I attended his lecture without in- vitation, and that I posted on the walls of his university, an address to Ms pupils, requesting them, at a stated period to listen to a refutation of what he had advanced." 2nd. That 1 had puffed myself. The first complaint brought forward by the author of the strictures is sufficient to shew that these were written, not for the profession, but for the gene- ral public. At the time he wrote it, he must have felt con- scious that his brethren, aware, that the medical classes in the university of Pennsylvania are open for the admis- sion of every regular bred physician, would treat it with con- tempt. Yet in despite of this knowledge he published it, in the vain hope, that the public would consider me guilty of ungentlemanlike conduct in attending his lecture and address- ing his pupils. The facts are as follow: for a week or ten days before this lecture was delivered, a report was most sedulously circulated amongst the students, that the profes- sor of surgery was to deliver on a certain day a discourse, which was not only to over-turn my practical doctrines as relating to Lithotomy, but, which was also to prove that I had no pretensions to professional eminence. It was certainly very natural that I should feel anxious to learn the ar- 7 guments by which the professor proposed to establish his proof, and that, having ascertained their extent, I should be desirous to refute them. I had received at the commence- ment of the session from Dr. Gibson, a general invitation to attend his lectures. The one alluded to, was delivered for the purpose of over-turning opinions advanced by me, in an open, public, and professional manner. I conceived that a love of truth could alone have induced the professor to ques- tion the correctness of my doctrines, and judging of him, as I would judge of a man of honour, I thought that, in at- tending his lecture, I conferred on him a favour; that, truth being his object, he would be desirous to allow me an op- portunity of defending my opinions. Under these impres- sions I attended the class, in company with Dr. Eberle. His lecture was a very weak and ungenerous attack upon my reputation. It is true that my name was not mentioned, but it was quite evident to all the students that the single object of it was to convince them that I had been guilty of most disingenuous conduct in relation to Mr. Golles, and, of great ignorance as to the principles and practice of my profession. Although the arguments advanced by the professor were so puerile and contradictory, as to carry along with them their own refutation, still, in justice to my public character, I felt it my duty to answer to my students, who formed a part of Ms class, the charges which had been made insidiously against me. In the course of the same day I had therefore posted tip in the gate of the university, a M. S. bill, which simply stated, that I would the following evening deliver a lecture on the anatomy of the prostate fascia, to which the medical stu- dents, and profession generally were invited. As the doctor appears offended at my having attended his s lecture without a more particular invitation, I, without hesi- tation, apologise to him for doing so. This lecture had been so long and so well published, that I had my professional curi- osity excited, and really could not exercise that self-denial which he showed when under a similar excitement. If he thinks I acted unmannerly in coming into a public class room without a card of invitation, he must allow that I took care to avoid placing him under the painful necessity of either be- ing guilty of a similar unpoliteness, or of having a laudable curiosity remain ungratified. I sent him a very civil card, in- viting him to attend my lecture, delivered with the view of refuting the opinions he had advanced. He, however, did not think fit to avail himself of it. My discourse was not delivered as an attack on Dr. Gib- son, but as a defence of my own opinions: 1 did not speak of him disrespectfully, but merely endeavoured to convince my auditors, that nothing he had said, could have the effect of taking from me the claims I had made, or of disproving the justness of my practical doctrines. Had I felt desirous to crush my invidious enemy, the field was open for me; I might have exposed his malevolence, by laying open and enlarging on the object which had dictated his lecture,—I might have demonstrated the weakness of his mind, and his want of ori- ginality, by reading from authors whole pages he had got by rote, but he was a professor, and I felt pity for him. Having thus disposed of his first complaint, and proved that it is groundless, I am next led to the refutation of his second;— that I puffed myself, and wished to introduce into the Ame- rican newspapers a system of puffing. I am aware that it is necessary to be a little hypothetical, in order to construe this complaint, into an aggression 9 against Dr. Gibson. But, allowing latitude to my argu- ment, I may suppose, that the offended individual might con- ceive that it would be an offence against him in two ways; first, that it might have the effect of pushing me forward in practice, to his detriment, and secondly, that the indelicacy of it hurt his feelings. Every person who has read the "Strictures" where this puff is so loudly and repeatedly complained of, must have been led to suppose, that it was one of a very offensive na- ture. The best method of contradicting this is to, publish it. From the Norfolk Beacon. THE AMERICAN MEDICAL RECORDER, Published in Philadelphia, by James Webster. Periodical Journals, when properly conducted, are, of all publications, the most interesting to those who live remote from the sources of science and information. Through such publications the streams of knowledge and improvement flow in innumerable channels, and may be brought to every door, without either much trouble or ex- pense. I am led to these reflections by having just read the last number of the above named interesting medical journal, which, judging from this specimen, I regard as highly cre- ditable to the editor, and very worthy of an extensive pat- ronage. This number contains several papers, possessing a very high degree of interest. The initial article, written by Mr. G. S. Pattison, surgeon, is without doubt the most important paper on the subject of lithotomy, that has appear- ed in any country, for a considerable time past. There is B 10 another paper, by a Dr. M'Clellan entitled to considerable praise. It relates to the "surgical anatomy of the arteries." It brings forward some new ideas relative to the anatomy of the pleura, and discovers generally an acute and discrimina- tive mind. There are several well written reviews in the number, and the selections and general management of the work appear judicious. I have made these remarks, influenced by no other motives than the desire of directing the attention of physicians to the work, which I verily believe, to be fully entitled to their patronage. medicus. It is obvious to every person, who reads this letter, that its single object and intention, is to puff the Medical Recorder, not Mr. Pattison. I am introduced only incidentally with my friend Dr. M'Clellan, and the editor, who are equally puffed with myself. I may state, that at the time this letter was published I had no interest in, nor the most distant idea of ever being connected with, the American Medical Recorder. It will be unnecessary for me, I conceive, to employ any ar- guments to show that there was nothing very offensive in the communication published in the Norfolk Beacon; but, allow- ing that it had been composed in a very different spirit, and had blazoned forth in the most empirical style my merits, Dr. Gibson was not entitled to urge its appearance against me, as I shall, by the publication of the following letter, prove that he had the most positive, and satisfactory evidence. that I knew nothing of it until after its appearance in the newspaper, and that I had then, in the strongest terms. expressed my disapprobation of all such publications. 11 Philadelphia, Sept. 15,1820. "Dear Sir—I observe, that Dr. Gibson in his Strictures, &c. still persists, very disingenuously, to accuse you of having written the Norfolk puff. He says, "1 can only say I verily believed him to be the author, and I have as yet no good reason to change my opinion on the subject." More than six months ago, I assured Dr. Gibson, upon my honour, that you had nothing to do, either directly or indi- rectly, with the publication of that offensive article, and de- clared to him, that I could speak positively upon the subject, as I had a perfect knowledge of the source from which the puff emanated. I subsequently frequently repeated to him these assurances, under pledges, such as a man of honour deems sufficient to give, or to receive upon any occasion. The last time I thus solemnly assured the Doctor of your innocence, of the unhandsome charge he has been con- stantly urging against you, was in the presence of Dr. Chap- man. In addition to all this, Mr. Webster offered Dr. Gib- son to make oath, before a magistrate, that you had nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the puffin question. This surely was enough to restrain, any liberal minded man from repeating this gross and unjust accusation; but, howev- er insulting it be to the feelings of an honourable man, to have his most solemn pledges thus lightly estimated, I re- frain from making any further remarks on the flagrant in- justice which is done you, and the insult offered me, in the present instance. As to Dr. Gibson's assertion, that your conduct has been empirical in the extreme, and that the profession in general in Philadelphia, can bear testimony to this, I can only say, 12 that, from what I know of the sentiments of my profession- al brethren in this city, I have every reason to believe, so far from considering you as having acted empirically, since you have come amongst us, they approve of your conduct, as highly honourable, and strictly professional. I am your friend, &c. JOHN EBERLE* To Granville Sharp Pattison, Esq. That puffs concerning the operations of American sur- geons are occasionally published in the newspapers, is a fact well known. If the Baltimore papers, for a few years back, be looked over, it will be observed that some of the operations, of the same Dr. Gibson, who felt so terrified that I should intro- duce a "puffing system" into this country, are extolled in terms of the most absurd hyperbole: and further, if he only takes the trouble to look into Mr. M'Corkle's paper of May 31, 1820, and the other city newspapers of the same date, he will find that there are published on his friend, who stands as the first surgeon in the country, and who is not to be benefited by any praises of mine, the following remarks, for the performance of one of the most simple and trifling operations in surgery. From the Freeman's Journal of May 31,1820. "Restoration or Eye-sight__We are gratified in being enabled to communicate to the public a remarkable cure which has been effected upon the eyes of Mr. Robert Lauier a gentleman well known in this vicinity. 13 Mr. L. for a number of years had laboured under the almost total deprivation of the sight of his right eye, the left being entirely destroyed for about nineteen years past. The most skilful surgeons had been consulted, but no relief could be administered till within a few weeks past, when he went to Philadelphia, and applied to Dr. P. S. Physick, who, in four seconds, removed the cataract, and restored the defective eye almost to its original state of perfection; and this too, with- out the least pain or inconvenience. Mr. L. returned home on Friday last, and has requested us to make public the cure that has been effected by Dr. P. not only as an act of justice towards that eminent physician, but for the benefit of such of his fellow-citizens as may labour under a distressing vi- sitation of a loss of eye-sight." It is not my wish that it should be thought Drs. Physick or Gibson were the authors of the puffs, which have re- peatedly appeared concerning their operations; I am satis- fied that the former gentleman, would not give his con- sent to the publication of those, which related to him, and had the latter individual not affirmed, in his "Strictures'*9 that such could not appear without the authority of the person puffed; "and, that there are ways in which such an affair can be managed, so as to remove the odium of it from his own shoulders;' I should never for a moment, have en- tertained the idea, that even he, would have assisted in com- posing those which have appeared regarding himself, in the Baltimore papers. 1 feel satisfied from the few observations I have made, that my readers give me an unanimous verdict, "not guilty" on the first charge, and come now, with equal confidence, to re- 14 quire of them a verdict of "Guilty" against the author of the "Strictures." For the purpose of obtaining this verdict, I shall not go be- yond the present controversy. I might, were I desirous, prove that from the hour I began to lecture, Dr. Gibson, by the circulation of childish and malicious whispers, has done ev- ery thing, in his power, to injure my character. I have how- ever no occasion to bring forward these, in support of my case. From the history of this controversy, I can obtain much more evidence than is sufficient to convict him. I do not suppose that Dr. Gibson himself will have the hardihood to deny, that his lecture was a concealed, and, on his part, a most indelicate attack upon my reputation; grant- ing, for a moment, that my opinions were indefensible, and that Ihad beenguilty of a literary piracy, from the peculiar relation which existed betwixt us, had he possessed any delicacy, he, certainly of all men, was the last who should have exposed me. But one attack was not sufficient, writhing under the disap- pointment that I had triumphantly refuted the arguments, which he hoped would have crushed me, he departed so far from all those principles, which are acknowledged as guides for regulating the conduct of gentlemen and men of sci- ence, as to publish in Mr. Poulson's newspaper the dis- graceful letters signed "Aristides." I am astonished that Dr. Gibson has dared to come before the public, and acknowledge that he was their author;—and what is his apology? "a sort of quack hill or circumforatieous advertisement," he, observes "emanating apparently from a Norfolk newspaper, was pub- lished successively in most of the Philadelphia newspapers, &c." This sort of quack bill,—-this circumforaneous adver- 15 tisement, which he has the impudence to plead, as the single cause, which justified the publication of his anonymous at- tacks, was the communication already published;—a comm«< nication which contained nothing, which could have the ef- fect of injuring his character, and one, which he had the most satisfactory evidence, was neither composed nor publish- ed by me. He tells us, that he left his name at the office of the newspaper, making here a virtue of a necessity, for where is the printer who without a name, would have made himself responsible for such an assassin-like attempt on the reputa- tion of any man? I can well believe that, had Dr. Gibson been aware, I was in possession of all the facts which I am about to state to my reader, he would never have referred in his Strictures to Aristides's letters. I may preface these by observing, that I am authorised by the gentleman whose name is mentioned, to make the following statement. Having published the first of the letters signed Aristides, so well pleased was he, with his production, that, on the morning on which it appeared, he sallied forth to ascertain what the public thought of it. Early in the day he called on Dr. Eberle, and, with apparent satisfaction, asked him if he had read "the cutting up I had got in the newspapers." Be- ing answered in the affirmative, he enquired the Doctor's opinion of Aristides's letter. Dr. Eberle, suspecting thathe was its author, thought he would hold out a bait for him, and in reply, said, "It was very clever." The bait took, and the professor at once declared, "Itvrote it." Dr. Eberle, having gained his object, assured Dr. Gibson that he conceived he was acting a very unhandsome part to Mr. Pattison. The answer made was, I had no business to publish the puff about my?Hf in 16 the Norfolk Beacon. The most solemn assurance was given him, that I had no knowledge of that communication, that some of Mr. Webster's friends had inserted it, for the purpose of establishing the character of the journal, and that, if requir- ed, Mr. Webster would give his oath, that I never heard of the letter before it was printed, and that I had then expressed, in the strongest terms, my disapprobation of all such publi- cations. The apology he had pleaded in excuse, being re- moved, he was obliged to shift his ground, and contradict his former statement, by declaring he had not written the letter himself, but that it had been composed by one of his students, and that he, the Professor, had merely acted as his pupil's am- anuensis and porter, having copied it, and carried it to the printing office!!! When I saw the first of Aristides's letters, in the newspaper, I certainly did not suspect that it was the production of a professor. I treated it with contempt. My brother, how- ever, felt it otherwise, and calling, without my knowledge, on Dr. Eberle that day, (Friday) observed to him, that he thought some of my professional friends should answer it, which that gentleman readily agreed to do. When my bro- ther on Sunday told me what he had done I blamed him ve- ry much, and immediately left home for the purpose of seeing Dr. Eberle, and requesting him to stop the publication of the defence, he had sent to the newspaper. Not finding him on my first visit, I wrote a note, requesting him not to take any notice of the pitiful letter, written by Aristides, but, fearful that this might not induce him to comply with my wishes, I called again late at night, and begged him to withdraw from Mr. Poulson, the ietter he had written in my vindication, as I had no wish that my name 17 should be brought before the public in a newspaper. He as- sured me he would do so, but observed, that it would be un- necessary to call at the office before the morning, as he had been informed by the gentleman who had the charge of it, that the letter could not appear before Tuesday morning's paper. From some alteration in the arrangement of the Monday's paper, the letter, which it was said could not ap- pear until Tuesday, was, contrary to our expectations and wishes, printed. A few days after Dr. Eberle's letter signed Z. had ap- peared* Dr. Gibson called on him with a second communis cation which he had prepared for publication. He thought he had now a good excuse to vent his spleen; for who could be the author of the letter which vindicated my claims, but myself? This second communication he read to Dr. Eberle; it contained a very violent, and abusive attack on my character. That gentlemen begged it might not be published, and as- sured him again and again, in the most solemn manner, that I was not the author of the reply to Aristides. On Dr. Gibson's continuing to assert that he was convinced that I was its author, Dr. Eberle, with the most honourable can- dour, told him that he had himself written the letter signed Z. and then related to him all that had occurred, to con- vince him that any defence of that kind was contrary to my inclinations. Having received such a satisfactory statement, what did the author of the "Strictures" do? Did he feel ashamed of his conduct, and come and ask pardon of the * Dr. Eberle's letter contained only a few temperate remarks on the im- propriety of making any observations in a newspaper on a scientific subject; and observed that, as my paper was published in the Recorder, only for the profession, this journal was certainly the proper organ for the publication ©1 rriticisni6 upon it, &c. &c. c 18 man, whose character he had mistaken, and whose reputa- tion he had attempted to destroy? No, he goes home, vexed and disappointed, because my character was not what he would have wished it to have been; he prunes his letter of some of the more odious personalities and abuse which it contained, and sent it to the press, that it might repre- sent me, as an ignorant pretending quack, to the commercial public of Philadelphia. With a knowledge of all these facts, Dr. Gibson asserts, in the first paragraph of his "strictures," that he shall show, "by incontrovertible evidence, that his conduct, from beginning to end, has been upright and ho- nourable!!!" Were I to adduce, in support of my assertion, that Dr. Gib- son was the aggressor, all the proof I am possessed of, I should fill a volume. But I am persuaded that the few facts I have stated, are sufficient to make good my case, and to satis- fy every reader, that unprovoked envy and jealousy, have cha- racterized the behaviour of my antagonist, from the begin- ning of the controversy. I shall therefore now conclude the first division of my "answer" by stating a few facts, which, I trust, will prove, that, although aware of all the injury which Dr. Gibson has attempted against me, I have only felt pity for his malevolence and weakness, and that, so far from wish- ing to expose him, I have only done so, as far as was ne- cessary for my own justification. In the 10th number of the Medical Recorder, the author of the "strictures," published a case of "tying the iliac arte- ry, with observations." Never perhaps, was a paper more de- fective, and more open to just criticism, than the one alluded to. Yet so far was I, from wishing to interfere with this man, who had constantly since my settlement in the country, been 19 endeavouring to injure my reputation, that I didnot write a cri- ticism upon it myself, and further, employed all my influence with the editor of the Recorder, to prevent him from pub- lishing, two very severe criticisms upon it which were offer- ed by very intelligent surgeons. If my "reply to certain oral and written criticisms," &c. be perused it will be found that it contains only an indepen- dent defence of my opinions. I no doubt speak in terms of strong and just reprehension of the conduct of Aristides, but although it would have been perfectly fair in me to have mentioned who this anonymous traducer was, on this I was silent. I am informed that Dr. Gibson has been very much irri- tated at me, for illustrating the weakness of the criticism signed W. by saying that it brought to my mind an old story of a professor, who, finding it no easy matter to lecture, had apologized to his class for not giving them a valedictory lec- ture, saying, "he had intended to have written them a very fine lecture, but that really he was so morally and physically exhausted, that he found it impossible for him to compose one." The professor has however himself to blame for al- lowing the joke to become public, for I can most solemnly declare, I never, until after the publication of my reply, thought that he would have been so well pleased with this valedictory, as to repeat it with considerable self satisfac- tion to his friends. Had he only kept his own secret, the public would never have come to the knowledge, that my il- lustration meant more than appeared. I shall preface my defence on the 2d eharge, "that I have been guilty of a literary piracy" by a very abridged history of my first essay. so I was educated in the belief, that it was proper, in ope- rating for lithotomy, to make large wounds into the bladder, I thought the operation correct, and for the first years I lec- tured, I taught it as such to my students. A fatal case oc- curred, where the operation was performed with great ease and rapidity by a large wound, and where nothing happened to ex- plain the death. As I had lost a patient from urinal effusion, a short time before, and, as there was a very marked resem- blance in the symptoms preceding dissolution, in the two ea- ses, I suspected, that in the lithotomy patient, urine might have been infiltrated, and might have operated as the cause of death. Under this impression, I conducted the dissection, not as it is usually performed, but with the view of ascer- taining, whether there had or had not been urinal infiltra- tion. I discovered this had really occurred, and that my patient had died from it there could be no doubt. I was satisfied, in my own mind, that the urinal infiltration in the case mentioned above, had produced the fatal event, but I had at that time no idea that the largeness of the in- cision had any effect in producing the infiltration. Dissect- ing, afterwards, the bodies of those who had died, in the practice of my friends, from the operation, I invariably found pus betwixt the basfond of the bladder and the rectum. This I was aware was produced from the effusion of urine, but as I had no suspicion that this would occur more readily after a large, than a small wound, I continued still to recommend a large one. A considerable time afterwards, Scarpa's Me- moir on Lithotomy was brought me. That great surgeon as- serted that urinal infiltration was the common cause of death occurring after the operation for stone; my experience con- firmed this, but Scarpa's went further than I had done, he 21 affirmed that his experience had proved to him, that this was more apt to follow a large, than a small wound. As he, how- ever, gave no anatomical reason, why it should be so, I was unwilling to credit the statement. It occurred to me at the moment that if I could find a fascia, acting as a septum be- twixt the cavity of the pelvis, and the perineum I should have all my doubts resolved, and could then, on philosophi- cal principles, recommend the practice of operating, advo- cated by Scarpa. I did find such a fascia, and 1 thought I had made an anatomical discovery. Fearing that I had here- tofore, in my public teaching, misled my pupils, I gave up all my favourite predilections, and taught, what I considered a more correct doctrine. Sometime after my arrival in Phi- ladelphia, I read Mr. Colles, and discovered, that, that ana- tomist had seen and described the prostate fascia. This I made public, and, in the 9th number of the Medical Record- er, published an essay in which I brought forward my opin- ions, for the examination and consideration of my brethren. This, "is the very head and front of my offending." Having thus in a very few words stated the general facts of the case; I am led to insist more fully on the fact, that I have not been guilty of a literary piracy. Dr. Gibson, in his anonymous characters of Aristides and W., has, in the face of the most direct evidence to the contrary, asserted, that I have claimed the discovery of the prostate fas- cia, and, even after my reply, in which I adduced direct proof that I had not done so, he continues in his "Strictures" to make the same incorrect statements, and attempts by quoting gar- bled extracts from my first essay, to prove them. And al- though I, in my "reply," gave a perfect explanation of these expressions he has been so disingenuous, as never to advert to I 22 it. That the general reader may clearly understand this part of the controversy, I shall, I trust, be excused for re- peating some of the facts which I published in my reply." Conceiving that the clearest way of conveying to my rea- ders mind, the progress of my experience, I delivered it in the form of a diary of my thoughts, and as the prostate fas- cia was really and truly, to me a discovery, until I read Colles in Philadelphia, in speaking of my experience, at the date when I first dissected the fascia, I spoke of it as a "new fas- cia, a fascia which I called the prostate fascia." In contin- uing my account, however, I with equal clearness state that I was not the discoverer of the fascia, I observe, in the plainest language, that after reading Mr. Colles in Philadelphia, I was satisfied that Mr. C. had seen it before me, and finally concluded my essay, by giving up all pretensions to the ana- anatomical discovery, stating, "the only claim i shall MAKE, AND IN THIS I AM CONFIDENT I SHALL BE SUPPORT- ED, IS, THAT, UNTIL THE PRESENT, NO RATIONAL EXPLANA- TION HAS BEEN GIVEN, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH URINE IS EFFUSED, AND CONSEQUENTLY NO OPERATION HAS BEEN PHILOSOPHICALLY PROPOSED TO PREVENT IT." One Would suppose that the amount of what I claimed was sufficiently lim- ited and defined in this the concluding paragraph of my first essay, but, although I reprinted it in Italicks, in my reply, still, Dr. Gibson, in in his "strictures," continues to abuse me, for attempting to take the credit of the discovery of the prostate fascia to myself. That he himself is satisfied that this claim has never been made by me, I am persuaded, but, aware, that he could not take from me that which I really claimed, he has hoped to deceive the general public and make them belive, that I have been guilty of a literary piracy. 23 In attempt'ng to do so, he has unluckily quoted a passage from my former essay, which, if he had considered for a mo- ment, was of itself sufficient to prove the fact of my not claiming the prostate fascia as a discovery. "I presume" observes Dr. Gibson, "that he cannot deny that he (Mr. Pat- tison) stated, I still continued to believe it was so (i. e. a dis- covery) until I read Mr. Colles in Philadelphia," what is the clear inference to be drawn from this quotation of mine, surely, it is that until I read Mr. Colles in Philadelphia, I thought I had made an anatomical discovery, but, having done so, I no longer continued in that belief. The ingenious professor, however, draws from this passage a very differ- ent conclusion. He thinks I meant not to allow that Mr. C. knew any thing of the prostate fascia, but, merely, to in- sinuate, that I had never read the work before. He triumph- antly states to his reader, that he has discovered the secret, that I had read Colles shortly after it was published. Now this secret, which he wishes it to be supposed, I had no de- sire to be known I did not reveal to a single confident, but to a class of 300 hundred students, and to my professional friends generally. I never thought, that making the acknowledge- ment I had read the book before, was sufficient to prove, that [ must necessarily have been aware of all the facts which it contained. I think I can easily prove, that a person may read a book and still not bear in mind all its contents. I shall be excused I hope in offering two respectable illustrations in sup- port of this position. 1st. Every person who has been in the habit of attending Dr. Physick's lectures, must know, that annually he has been in the habit, of recommending the employment of animal li- gatures, and of taking Yery considerable credit to himself as 24 their discoverer. Dr. Gibson, last session, extolled these li- gatures, and abused Mr. Astley Cooper of London for using them, without sounding the praises of his colleague. We can hardly suppose that either of these individuals, are so ill in- formed on the works of their profession, as not to have read ?«Young's Medical Literature" where we have the prac- tice of animal ligatures recommended, on the same principles as those, which regulated Dr. Physick, viz. that they might be absorbed again. Dr. Physick has taken great honour to him- self, for being the discoverer of an instrument for tying ar- teries in deep situations. The author of the strictures, speaks of it in terms of high commendation, in his present pamphlet, calling it "Dr. Physick's forceps and needle." If "Heister's Surgery," which is one of the oldest text books, be opened, there will be found in it, not only a description, but an engraving of an instrument of which Dr. Physick's is a mere modification. It is true, that the needle figured by Heister is not recommended for tying deep seated arteries, but for sewing deep seated wounds '.! These illustrations are not brought forward as offensive, but as defensive arguments; I do not wish to prove that Dr. Physick was desirous to purloin these discoveries from those to whom they belonged. My only wish is to show, that it is possible for an honest and intelligent man, to read a book and yet not be fully aware of all its contents. When I read Mr. Colles in Philadelphia, and discovered that he had des- cribed the prostate fascia, previously to me, I immediately proclaimed it. This conduct was, certainly candid and ho- nourable towards Mr. Colles, but, although the claims of Heister and Young, have been pointed out to Dr. Physick, I have not yet learnt, that he has come forward and given up with equal candour his pretensions. 25 As Dr. Gibson has never brought forward a new thought nor an original idea, on the subjects of his profession, I have no power to test his discoveries. From the quotations brought forward, in the "Strictures,-" it would, at first sight, appear that the prostate fascia was familiar to all the best anatomists, and that it indicates igno- rance in me, to have ever supposed I had made a discovery, when the same parts had been described by Santorini, Wins- low, Fyfe, Munro, &c. &c.» If the description given of the part by these anatomists be referred to, it will be observed, that what Colles describes as a fascia, they describe as liga- ments. Santorini names it the ligamentum prostatas novum, Winslow speaks of it as a tendinous ligament, Munro, like- wise, employs the term ligament, when he mentions it. Fyfe comes nearer the truth; he calls it, a tendinous expan- sion, but, in his description, he merely desi-ribes it as being in- serted into the arch of the pubis. Sabatier divides the fascia into distinct ligaments. In all the authors who have mention- ed this stricture, with the exception of Mr. Colles, the pros- tate fascia is not described as a septum which separates the * As it is pleasing for us to fulfil our duty to' every man, we cannot allow the present opportunity to pass without acknowledging that we have never read any essay on lithotomy, if we except the article on this subject in the Dictionaire des Sciences Vledicales, where an equal degree of learning, or the same number of illustrious names are given, as in these strictures. The following is taken from a single paragraph of the above named pamphlet. Cheselden, Douglass, Sharp, Daunt, Dease, Sir James Earle, John Bell, Dr. Thompson, Allan Burns, Charles Bell, Allan, Dionis, Le Dran, De- champs, Sabatier, Boyer, Bertrandi, Desault, Hunter, Chne, Carlisle, Lynn, Abernethy, Home, S. Cooper, Lawrence, Bhck, Blizzard, Pearson, Benja- min Gibson, Hey, Brown, Newbigging, Russell, Inglis, George Bell, Colles, Barlow, Foster, Chevalier, Nannoni, Flajani, Pelletan, Percy, Richerand, Patrize, Lallemand, Roux, Cloquet, Las Frank, Serrurier, Merat, GuiHe Le Roux, Beclard, Delpeck,-------but this is really fatiguing, and I must relieve myself by the exclamation of my very learned friend flomme Samp- soii, "prodigious '.!!!!!" D 26 cavity of the pelvis from the perinteum, but as forming the ligaments of the bladder. The anatomists who described it, considered it as forming ligaments, they dissected it, accord- ingly, and, as the term ligament naturally conveys the idea of an isolated band, they divided it into distinct portions. From the ideas they had of its structure and use, they deceived them- selves as to its true nature and importance, and, from the term they employed in its description, I was misled in the first instance myself, and supposed I had made a discovery, when in fact I had only saw correctly, what they had seen incor- rectly. That I was not solitary will appear when I state, that all the anatomists to whom I demonstrated this structure, pre- viously to my reading Colles in Philadelphia, when 1 myself ascertained that I was not the discoverer, considered me as such. Dr. Gibson insinuates that both Dr. Physick and him- self were perfectly familiar with the prostate fascia before my arrival in the country. I deny the insinuation. I assert, that neither the one, nor the other, had an idea of such a structure, until their attention was directed to it by my demonstrations and essay; and I do not believe that even Dr. Gibson will have the boldness to come forward and declare, that he really was aware that such a structure existed. There are two faets which will at once disprove such an as- sertion, supposing it to be made by either of the above nam- ed professors. Last winter, (and never before last winter, was a demonstration of the prostate faseia given in Amer- ica,) it was demonstrated twice, first by Dr. Physick, and af- terwards by Dr. Gibson. That the former eonsidered it my discovery, up to the hour when he described it to his class, is evident, although I had done all in my power to convince him S7 that I had no claim to the anatomical discovery, from the manner in which this is noticed by the author of the "Stric- tures." "The fact is, Dr. Physick attached so little import- ance to the fascia, that he merely showed the part, and read a passage from Mr. Pattison's paper, without a comment." Dr. Gibson is so very weak, and inconsistent, in insinua- ating his and Dr. Physick's knowledge of the fascia, that I cannot deny my reader the amusement he will derive from the absurdity of his argument. He begins it by observing, during the time he was push- ing his canvass, for the chair of Surgery in the univer- sity of Pennsylvania, he heard that Mr. Pattison had made a brilliant discovery!! His whole mind, he tells us, was exci- ted by the most lively interest to ascertain its nature. I can be- lieve, that a man ardent in the pursuit of professional infor- mation may have felt, as he describes he did feel, but, real- ly, I cannot believe, that had he felt so, he would patiently have continued for five months, until the publication of the 9th number of the Recorder which contained my essay, without satisfying his "lively interest on the subject." He had an op- portunity of ascertaining the fact, by attending any of the de- monstrations which I was in the habit of occasionally giving, or of dissecting the parts on a subject himself; but, no! the inquisitive professor, continued to keep his mind on the stretch, until my essay began to excite a very considerable in- terest amongst the students and profession. This had the effect of putting a complete stop to his pretences, but he was not then aware, although he asserts that he was so in his "Strictures," "that I had only given an imperfect and awkward description of a structure about which most of the best ana- tomists had said more or less," on the contrary, as Doctors §8 Eberle, and M'Clellan, and many others can testify, he went about sneering, and denying that the prostate fascia existed. When he was told by these gentleman that there was a fas- cia, he boldly asserted, that, they were deceived, observing, that any man, who could handle a scalpel, could easily make one, so as to deceive lookers on. At this period of the con- troversy, subjects were dissected in the rooms of the univer- sity, but, not with the view of showing the pupils that I had claimed as a discovery what had not belonged to me, but, for the purpose of convincing them, that, the part described, had no existence except in my imagination. As the author of the "Strictures" proceeds, he continues to be equally absurd and contradictory. A fortnight before he delivered his lecture on lithotomy, he tellsus, that he wentinto Messrs. Collins and Croft's bookstore, and purchased Colles's Surgical Anatomy. He discovers in it "an unusually full and well written account of those very parts, which Mr. Pat- tison had claimed as a discovery of his own." To me, it ap- pears very strange that Mr. Colles's description of them should have received so much of his attention. He has in- formed us, just before, that Dr. Physick and himself, in a word all the great anatomists, were perfectly acquainted with the part I had claimed as a discovery. That his statement is incorrect, will be proved, of necessity, by his own ac- count of the business, for, in spite of what he had before said of his own and his colleague's knowledge of this struc- ture, he proceeds to inform us that they both examined Mr. C's. unusually clear description, with dissections made by Dr. Physick's dissector, When a man of talent supportsasser- sertions, which he is aware are false, we may be amused by the ingenuity and consistency which he throws around his argu- 29 ment, but, when a weak minded individual attempts to sup- port that which is not tenable, we become at once disgusted by liis feeble and contradictory efforts. I shall, there- fore, no longer fatigue my reader's attention by dwelling on this part of the "strictures" but shall merely in conclusion ask the question. Is it probable, had either the one or other of these individuals known the prostate fascia, that it would have been necessary, before they could ascertain whether the one described by Mr. Colles was the same men- tioned by me, for them to hold a consultation, and make dis- sections? Having thus established the fact, that, although I was not the discoverer of the prostate fascia myself, still it was a structure of which they had no idea, until after my arrival in America. I come to conclude, this second division of my answer, by making a very few observations on the nature of my practical deductions, and on the arguments which are brought against them, by the author of the "strictures." Scarpa, one of the greatest surgeons of the present age, has been, from experience led to assert, that the infiltration of urine betwixt the basfond of the bladder and the rectum, is one of the principal dangers to be dreaded, after the operation of lithotomy;—all intelligent surgeons agree, that patients often die after this operation, without there being found those marks of inflammation in the abdominal viscera, necessary to ac- count for that event;—In all the examinations I have had an opportunity of making, after death, from lithotomy, I have dissected the bodies, not as is usually done, but, with the view of discovering urinal effusion. I have invariably dis- covered that it was present, and that it had been the cause of death, there is every reason to believe. I have demonstrated, 80 from the connections of the prostate fascia, that it forms a per- fect septum betwixt the cavity of the pelvis and the perineum, and that, so long as the base of the gland remains uncut, it is physically impossible for one drop of urine to infiltrate be- twixt the bas fond of the bladder and the rectum, and con- sequently if infiltrated urine be a principal cause of death, the operation recommended by me is free from this danger. Dr. Gibson has taken a great deal of pains to prove, what I have no wish to deny, viz. that many of the best surgeons, of the present day, advocate a practice very different from the one I have recommended. It is only since the publica- tion of my essay, that the fact, that urine may infiltrate af- ter a large wound, but that it is impossible to do so after a small one, where the base of the prostate gland remains un- divided, has, from the demonstrations of anatomy, been proved. Had I not been able to do this, and upon philosophical principles recommend my operation, I should have continued a disciple to the principles in which I was educated. To say, because the majority of surgeons are of a different opinion from me, it is necessary that my principles should be erroneous, is to reason like a child. When Harvey publish- ed his work, "De motu cordis, et sanguinis circulatione" all his professional brethren, to a man, declared that he was mis- taken. Did the event prove that he was so? When John Hunter first recommended the tying of the femoral artery, in cases of popliteal aneurism, were not his views contrary to those of his cotemporaries? The honour of a discovery restt in his offering to the world something which is contrary to the general and received opinion. If experience should prove that my practical conclusions are correct, I shall be 31 entitled to very considerable credit; should it however de- monstrate, I am wrong, all that can be said, will be, that I, like many others, have been mistaken. I have already stated that it is my intention to publish a volume on the subject of Lithotomy. I had not intended to enter on a refutation of that part of the "strictures" which may, by the uninformed, be considered as bearing against the justness of my practical conclusions. I am however tempt- ed, to make one or two remarks on the author's argument on this division of his subject, merely, to show that he is here as inconsistent and contradictory, as in the other partg of his pamphlet. Dr. Gibson takes it for granted, because Dr. Doug- lass says that Mr. Cheselden cut the prostate gland and shoulder of the bladder, in his last and most successful ope- ration, that he must have done so. This assumption is not admissible, for, if the arguments which I adduced in ray for- mer essay, had the effect of rendering it probable, that Mr. Cheselden was himself deceived, as to the exact extent of his incision, surely it is not inferring too much, to suppose that Dr. Douglass, who merely described the operation of Mr. Cheselden, from the account which that gentleman gave of it himself, might be incorrect. The only argument which the author of the "strictures" brings forward to over-turn the reasonings adduced by me in support of my opinions, that Mr. Cheselden was deceived, is, "that I shall find it no easy matter to make other people suppose, that Cheselden, a great anatomist, was mistaken." Will the Doctor allow me for a moment, merely for the sake of my argument, to say, that he himself is one of the first anatomists of his age. Ta- king this for granted, I can prove that even a very great man 32 may, in his operations, cut parts he does not intend. Now, for my story, which is not made merely for the sake of ar- gument, but which is a true and well substantiated fact. Dr. Gibson, anxious to make converts, has of late taken ev- ery opportunity to endeavour to convince the students, that I am mistaken. He, very candidly, mentions in his pamph- let, one operation, performed with this intention, in the Philadelphia alms-house, but, very delicately, considers it needless to say any thing of the first one he performed there with the same intention. Proceeding, with the view of convicting me of error, he cut into the perinseum, until he thought he had found the membranous part of the urethra, and then thrust his gorget into the wound, supposing he had cut only a portion of the prostate gland. After he had executed the operation, per- fectly satisfied with himself, he walked up and down the room, declaring he would stake something to which he seem- ed to attach great value, perhaps it might be his reputation, if the instrument had divided the base of the prostate. This harangue was, however, soon interrupted, the woe-expressive countenance of the dissectors denoting that all was not right. The professor became pale and agitated, he thought the gor- get had not done its duty, and that, unfortunately for his opi- nion, the base of the gland was cut. But, this fear was groundless. The Doctor had never found the gland, and had, without being aware of it, in spite of all his anatomical and chirurgical knowledge, carried his gorget directly into the shoulder of the bladder. I am aware, that there is no parallel betwixt this inexcu- sable blunder of Dr Gibson's, and the opinion advanced by me that Cheselden did not, in every case, extend his incision so 33 far as he intended. Experiment will prove, that the very best anatomists and surgeons, in performing the last of Che- selden's operations, will very often discover, by dissecting the parts afterwards, that the shoulder of the bladder remains undivided; but I readily allow that no man, who has the slightest pretension to anatomical knowledge or Surgical dexterity, will ever be guilty of the blunder committed by the professor of surgery, in the University of Pennsylvania. That it did not injure the dead body, I am willing to admit, but, that it would equally have occurred, had the subject been alive must be evident, and I will assert, that had this been the case, the life of the patient, would, in all probability have fal- len a sacrifice to the ignorance of the operator. Allowing for a moment, that the author of the "Strictures" is correct in his assumption, that Cheselden did, in every instance, cut the whole of the prostate and shoulder of the bladder, this does not prove, that such an operation is the best, which can be executed. He admits that, from this perfect operation, Cheselden lost 20, out of 213 patients; and, in the very commencement of the same paragraph, in- forms us, that Rau, the Dutch Lithotomist, did not loose a sin- gle patient, although he operated 1540 times. It is a mon- strous absurdity to assert, that an operation is perfect, and the best which can be performed, when it is admitted, 1st. that 20 die from it out of 213, and, 2dly, that ano- ther has been executed, where there was not a single death in 1540 cases. I would ask Dr. Gibson, as an honest man, what operation was left for Rau to perform, but the one 1 have recommended. That he did not open the shoulder of the bladder, leaving the prostate untouched, the melan- choly result of the first of Cheselden's operations, where E 34 this practice was adopted, is sufficient to prove; that he did not eut the shoulder of the bladder and prostate gland, is equal- ly demonstrated, for supposing Cheselden, in his last opera-* tion, did so in every instance, the result is very different, 20 patients died from the operation, out of 213. There was only one operation left for Rau, which was to make a small wound in the prostate, leaving its body uncut, and thus render any urinal infiltration physically impossible. I would not pretend to assert, that no other cause but that of effused urine, can operate as the cause of death, after the operation for stone. Dr. Gibson observes, that he has seen in Europe, the patients kept on the table for hours, during which time, the utmost violence was committed, and the bladder was torn and shockingly mangled. This I never saw in Europe, but I have heard, since coming to Baltimore, that in the only two operations of Dr. Gibson, of which I can get a history, the one patient was kept 60 minutes on the table, and the other above forty five, and that they might die from absolute irritation a few hours afterwards, "I am rea- dy to admit." The last observation I shall make on the criticism, deliv- ered by Dr. Gibson against the correctness of my practical deductions, is, that it is quite evident, he does not under- stand the facts adduced by me in support of them. He ob- serves, "If Mr. Pattison had filled the bladder, and not pour- ed the water into the pelvis, and then cut the prostate and neck of the bladder, and fascia, his class would have had a satisfactory demonstration of the fallacy of his principles, as the urine would have escaped, pleno rivo, and could not possibly have been detained by the fascia, or any similar structure*" Unfortunately for Dr. Gibson's assertion, I did 35 fill the bladder with water, and not the pelvis, and the stu- dents had a most satisfactory demonstration, not of t!e fal- lacy, but the correctness of my principles; for, upon dividing the base of the prostate and neck of the bladder, the fascia necessarily being cut, the water, when forced from the blad- der, flowed partly from the external wound, and was allow- ed partly to infiltrate into the cellular substance connecting the bas fond of the bladder to the rectum. From my professional brethren I have nothing to fear. I am aware that there are some of them, who are not yet rea- dy to assent to my doctrines, but I fondly, and confidently hope, that there is not one honest and honourable man amongst them, who will not confess, that I have inculcated my opinions in a modest, professional, and gentleman-like manner. Whether the principles I teach are correct or er- roneous, time and experience alone can demonstrate. Yet this I can solemnly declare, that in adopting them myself, I did so from a conviction that they were just. That I may be wrong, is very possible, and so soon as I am convinced that I am so, I shall act, precisely as I did in adopting them; come before the public, and inform them, that I have been mistaken. 3dly. Dr. Gibson states, in his strictures, that I make false statements, and, to prove this, he uses with great free- dom, the name of Dr. Physick. That gentleman's name is employed by him to confirm assertions, which I shall, from the most direct and positive evidence, prove to be false. Be- lieving that the professor of anatomy was a man of honour, and one who would not allow himself to be made a caVs-paw by Dr. Gibson or any other professor, the moment I had glanced over the "strictures" I wrote him the following letter. 36 Sir, I have just glanced over an essay of Dr. Gibson's, in which your name is employed to confirm statements, which are not consistent with truth. As I propose to morrow to write an answer to his Strictures, and as I should wish to know, before doing so, whether you have permitted him to use your name, I would beg answers to the following ques- tions. Did you not allow in my dissecting room, in the presence of Mr. Le Seaur, Dr. Eberle, and my brother, that the fas- cia, of which Le Seaur was taking a drawing, was a discov- ery? Were you aware of the existence of the prostate fas- cia previous to my coming to this country? Did you not re- quest Dr. M'Clellan to carry me Colles's work? and, did you not, when I pointed out to you that the author had describ- ed the fascia, say, that his account was so confused, that it could not be understood? and further, that his having, or not having seen it, would militate nothing against the honour which was due to me, for the important practical conclu- sions, which I had deduced from that structure? I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant, Granville Sharp Pattison. Friday Evening, September 15, 1820. 154 Walnut St. P. S. As I am anxious to return as soon as possible, to Baltimore, and wish to finish the MSS. to morrow, 1 shall expect an immediate answer. Dr. Horner, delivered to me, the next day, the annexed oaid, with the contents of which I must confess, I was real- ly astonished. 37 "Dr. Physick informs Mr. Granville Sharp Pattison, that he declines entering into any correspondence with him, res- pecting the controversy existing between him and Dr. Wm. Gibson." Granville Sharp Pattison, Esq. Philadelphia, iQth Sept. 1120. As Dr. Horner begged me to write an answer to it, al- though I did not consider this necessary, I gave him for Dr. Physick the following. Mr. Pattison is at a loss to understand, why Dr. Physick refuses to reply to the plain questions which were put to him in Mr. Pattison's letter of yesterday evening. Dr. Phy- sick is, however, the best judge of what is most for his own interest. Saturday, 16th Sept. 1820. For Dr. Physick. From the perusal of this correspondence, it will appear, that I have been unable to learn, whether Dr. Physick does, or does not warrant Dr. Gibson in employing his name. It is unfair in the extreme, for him to say, that he declines en- tering into "any correspondencem|isoii*s Chemistry, Lawrence on Ruptures, Henry's Chemistry, Cullen's Practice, Cullen's Synopsis, Coxe on Insanity, Corvisart on the Heart, Coxe's Dispensatory, Rush's Medical Inquiries, Pott on Hydrocele, Moss on Children, Murry on the Arteries, Abernethey's Surgery, Burns on Jnllammatioa, Hooper's Medical Dictionary, Bell's Engravings, Davidge's Nosology, Cooper's Introductory Lec- ture, Orfila on Poisons, abridged by Nanerede, Edinburgh Dispensatory, James's Merriman, Bard's Midwifery, Lietard's Synopsis, * Barton's and Bigelow's Med- ical Botany, &c. &c. &c. g3* Liberal Discount on Cash Sales. Mad,. Hist. WZ P3JLU \1X0 Cl