w
 600
C434o
 1876
CHAILLE


MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE
 
W 600 C434o 1876




28330140R
NLM  D511Sflm  M
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
   DUE



SK-:  1 9 WD
ST DATE
NLM051158414 
koviai i i
YOFMEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF ME Dl CI NE  N A T I O N A L L I B R A R Y O F M E D I C I N E  N A T I O N A I L I B R A R Y O F W
IY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF
ARY OF MEDICI
IY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE N A T I O N AI I I B R A R Y OF I
vl
j  /*W"!
!  r ^


i<r
                                                       4
       *  ^i?5s    *■    ^-^   *   A-^>   *■
IBM 1VNOUVN JNI3I01W JO ABVBBI1 1VNOUVN  J N I 3 I 0 3 W J O A » V » fl II 1 V N O 11 V N  JN I 3 10 SWJO UYHI1 1

                                                       S

 
 
      ORIGIN  AND PROGRESS




                  OF





medical Jurisprudence.




            1776-1876..






         A CENTENNIAL ADDRESS


                  BY

        STANFORD E. CHAILLE, A.M., M.D.,
  PROFESSOR OF PnYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY IN THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
             UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA.



             A REPRINT FROM THE
     "TRANSACTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CONGRESS,"


           Philadelphia, September, 1876.


            FOR THE BENEFIT OF


     THE LEGAL AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONS
 X.               OF THE

  \         UNITED STATES.
PHILADELPHIA:

      1876. 
             k/
             GOO




               C,/

NATIONAL  LIBRARY  OF MEDICINE
      WASHINGTON. D. C.
   PHILADELPHIA:

COLLINS, PRINTER,

   705 Jayne Street. 
ADDEE8S.
   Medical Jurisprudence owes its  power to knowledge derived from
 every branch of medicine, but the law determines how  far  this power
 shall  be utilized  in the  administration of justice.  Hence, the develop-
 ment of Medical Jurisprudence has varied  in different nations with the
 progress of medical science, and  with the extent of its application to the
 protection of  property, reputation,  and  life.  Efficiency in  this  legal
 application varies  with  the appreciation of medical  knowledge by the
 rulers of a nation ; and (since an adequate  appreciation is limited to the
 educated few, and is not yet disseminated among the mass of any people),
 it results, that laws more favorable to the culture of legal medicine are
 to be found in nations ruled by the educated few, than in those governed
 by the people.  The unequal  development of Medical Jurisprudence in
 different nations finds in these facts an explanation, in large part  at least,
 and recalls the political axiom that " arbitrary powers well executed, are
 the most convenient," while " delays and inconveniences in the forms of
 justice are the price that all free  nations  must pay for their  liberty in
 more substantial matters."1

   The papal canon-laws,2 originating  many medico-legal questions, sowed
 in 1(320 by the hand of Zacchias,3 a pope's physician, the first  sound seed
 of  Medical  Jurisprudence in  the land of Columbus,  then the home of
 Science and the Arts.4

  1  Blackstone, iv. p. 350.  Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (four
 books) were  published a century ago, viz.  1765  to 1769,  and, hence, are frequently
 referred to.
  2 The " Corpus Juris Canonici," a compend of the canon-laws, is  dated 1580.
  3 B. 2.  This and all succeeding references  to " B," refer to the  Bibliography, with the
 numbers therein.
  4  From many facts  which might be  cited  to prove this statement, as also that the
 development of medical jurisprudence in different nations has varied with their culture  of
medical science, the following quotation is selected from p. 142 of Russell's  " History and
Heroes of Medicine," London, 1861: " If we survey the social and political state of Europe
from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, in its relation to the development of medical
art, our attention is at once arrested  by Italy, which at this period was far  ahead of the
rest of the world.  Taking the number of  Universities as an index of civilization, we find
that before the year 1500, there were sixteen in Italy, while in France there  were but six ;
in Germany . .  . there were eight; and in Great Britain two; making sixteen in all—
the exact number which existed in Italy alone.  The Italian Universities were likewise no
less superior in fame than in number to those of the North."  Italy maintained this supe-
riority during, and even after, the sixteenth century. 
4
CHAILLE,
   The new-born shoot, languishing in Italy, was transplanted in German
 soil, where it received such culture as nourished its growth, developedjts
 fruit,  and  reproduced seed to germinate in  other lands.  To favoring
 legislation  from 15321 to the  present  day, the fatherland owes its pre-
 eminence in  Medical Jurisprudence.   Germany, for  two centuries, has
 had an organization of medico-legal officials, to whom alone it intrusts
 the duty, both to procure the  medical  facts needed  by the courts, and to
 estimate the weight due such  facts from  whatever source obtained; it
 alone  requires  that  these experts shall  be  especially educated,  and
 provides medico-legal clinics2  for their  practical instruction.   In 1650,
 Michiaelis3 delivered the very first lectures on Legal Medicine, and as early
 as 1720 professorships of the same were founded by the state. By 1725, the
 celebrated works of Valentini, Teichmeyer, and Albertus,4 had supplanted
 that of Zacchias; and since then a medico-legal literature more abundant
 than in  all  other languages has nourished the science of Medical Juris-
 prudence both at home and abroad.  In fine, Germany, specially excelling
 in  the Art, has consequently excelled in the culture of the Science.
   France, from 1570 to 1692, enacted laws which, like those of Germany,
 favored  the culture of Legal Medicine;  but in 1692, medico-legal offices
 became hereditary and venal, and  Legal Medicine languished until after
 the French Revolution.  Since 1790, no nation  has surpassed France in
 the culture of medical science; in addition, the judges appoint medical
 experts, who, since 1803, must be graduates in medicine, and must have
 attended one course of lectures, and have passed an examination on Legal
 Medicine, professional chairs of which were  established by the state in
 1794.5   However, French authorities denounce their didactic  instruction
 as insufficient for the education of experts, and declare the appointment
 of these by  the judges, and the lack of skilled medico-legal  officials  to
 procure  medical evidence, to  be  most  unsatisfactory, and their whole
 system to be much inferior to the German.   Still, France has at least a
 system,  and meanly as  this does  apply the art, it has served to greatly
 stimulate the culture  of the science, as  has  been notably  illustrated since
 17966  by French medico-legal literature.  A critical appreciation of how
 much  of this literature has been derived from Germany, and how much
 of medico-legal  science without the  art  has been transported from Ger-
 many  and France to Great Britain, and the United States, would, I fear,
 prove  offensive to Gallic, and still more to Anglo-American, vanity.
  Great Britain transmitted to this nation  laws, barbarously conspicuous
 for the absence of provisions  to apply medical knowledge to the admi-
 nistration of justice, and Anglo-American  law continues to be. in laro-e
 measure, hostile to Medical Jurisprudence.   However, British laws have
 done  something for the science,  and  a little for the art.   For Great
 Britain has fostered medical education ; did  in  1803 found a  chair of

  1  The Constitutio Criminalis of Charles V,  1532, (published  in 1553) rendered it
 obligatory on the Courts to take the evidence of medical men in medico-leal cases.
  2  The first  one established  was at Vienna,  about 1830 ;  a second at Berlin  1833 •
a third  at Munich, 1865; and  probably a fourth  since 1870  at Strasbourg, where France
had its  only medico-legal clinic, 1840 to 1870. In France, Great Britain, and the United
States,  Medical Jurisprudence cannot be said to be  practically taught except  as  to
Toxicology.                                                 '     ^
  3 University of Leipzig;  Michiaelis was succeeded by Bohn.
  4 B. 29,  30, 31.
  5 Chaussier,  in 1790, was the  first  lecturer, and  Mahon, in 1795, (B. 115) the first
professor.  Fodere says the state enacted the first laws favorable to Legal Medicine in !',()•>
  6 The date of the first French general treatise (B. 114). 
ADDRESS  OX MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.
o
 Forensic Medicine in one University,1 and now has such  chairs in all its
 medical  colleges (some of  these conferring a special degree in  State
 Medicine);2 has  by  the  Registration  Act and other  laws3  greatly
 strengthened the medical profession ; and has compelled its courts to
 accept expert  evidence only  from  registered,  and  therefore educated,
 medical men.   Still, " the crowned  republic" remains destitute, as does
 its democratic American offspring, of popular, and hence of governmental,
 appreciation of the legal importance of medical knowledge, as is proved
 by the same lack of  any system to secure the medical evidence of com-
 petent experts  that  characterized its laws when surgeons were barbers,4
 and  when physicians were astrologers,  sorcerers, and  interpreters  of
 dreams.   "What  wonder that Germany  and France  began the  study
 earlier, and have prosecuted it more successfully?
   The States of this  Union have, for the most part, left the culture of
 medical science to individual enterprise which supplies solely that which
 the private citizen demands—practitioners of medicine to heal the sick.
 The States have as yet  made no demand  for competent medical experts
 to  aid  the administration of justice, and  have done nothing designedly
 for the culture  of Medical Jurisprudence.   What growth  can this branch
 of  State  Medicine have  as long  as a State does not  recognize even its
 existence?  Before attempting to answer  this question, it will be well—
 having now briefly examined the causes—to present as  briefly some illus-
 trations of the  extent of the general  progress of Legal Medicine.

   To appreciate progress during any period, it is necessary to  keep in
 mind the empire of the dead over the living ; to recall  some of the victo-
 ries gained over superstition and ignorance during the preceding century,
 as  well as during that now closing.
   From 1620 to 1722, the authority of the father5 of medico-legal science
 was supreme.   He-devoted chapters  to Torture, Sorcery, Prophecy, Mir-
 acle,  and  Immaculate Conception.  Admitting one  hundred and  fifty
 births at  a labor, he  skeptically doubted  the three hundred  and sixty-
 five brought forth by the prolific Countess of Henneberg!  During this
 period  doctors  gravely  discussed whether a woman  could be got  with
 child by the devil,  or  by a dream; and French  judges  legitimized an
 infant in a case where the  husband had been separated four years  from
 the mother, on  the ground that the child  owed its paternity to a dream.
  Doctors taught that grossly  deformed infants had a bestial  parentage;
judges, even in 1769, declared  that they  had " no inheritable blood" for

  1  University of Edinburgh : Dr. Duncan, Sr., in 1801, was the first English speaking
 lecturer on  Forensic Medicine, and his  son the first professor,  in 1803.  In  this same
 University (chartered in 1582) was established, in 1726, the first English-speaking Medical
 Faculty, which conferred degrees on less than 300  graduates  from  1726 to 1776.  From
 1705 to 1726 twenty-one medical degrees, which would now be deemed irregular, perhaps
honorary, were conferred.  Institutions for medical education were established in Italy,
 Germany, and France, long prior to 1705 or 1726.
  2  Each of the twenty-three medical colleges reported in England and Scotland in 1875,
had a regular teacher devoted to Forensic Medicine; and some of these, at least those at
Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh, and Dublin, confer a special degree  in  State Medicine on
those applicants only who ^have already graduated in medicine, and have thereafter
satisfactorily pursued this  special study.
  3  The Registration  Act  was passed "in 1858.  " Glenn's Manual of the Laws affecting
Medical Men," London, 1871, gives a list of 36 such laws from 1800 to 1870, and of these
25 from 1850 to 1870.
  4  Surgeous were barbers in England until 1745.                  s B. 2.
       2 
6
CHAILLE,
a "reason too obvious and too shocking to bear a minute  discussion,
and  the priest, encouraging doctor and judge, cried " Si tu es homo, te
baptizo."
  Until 1726 (Albertus), it was taught that, in presence of the murderer,
his victim's wounds did " open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh,
and courts accepted the testimony of medical experts to this miraculous
bleeding of the corpse.2  The effect upon a suspected homicide of touching
the dead body of his  supposed victim, continued to be a legal expedient
within the nineteenth century.3
  Unearthed bones  served to convict men  of murder, and yet  these
accusing bones, since not even human, were  not  those of missing men.
A cranial foramen devised by nature, yet  perverted by ignorance into
an assassinating awl-hole, would have hung  Thomas Bowman, but for
accident.
  Superstition,  denouncing  medico-legal  autopsies even more fiercely
than  it now does cremation, did not permit these to become frequent
until about 1750; and the work of the father of morbid  anatomy,4 a
foundation stone of Legal Medicine, was not published until 1761.  By
superstition, and by ignorance of normal and  morbid  anatomy, of the
causes of sudden death, of diagnostics, and  of chemistry, Legal Medicine
wras powerless,  when compared  with its present  state.  So great was
its  helplessness, that a horrible  atmosphere  of  suspicion  encompassed
the fear of death by poison.   On those even suspected, the grossest legal
abuses were everywhere inflicted ; while those convicted were long boiled
alive by English law, and  burned (as  late  as  1780)  by  the French
" Chambre Ardente,"5 which was not abolished until 1791.
  The highest  medico-legal authorities6 taught belief in ghosts, witches,
and  possession  by the devil;  and united with  the clergy until 1752 in
denouncing all disbelievers thereof as heretics and atheists.   They  found
demoniacs for  the jailor  and  the stake, where we find patients for the
doctor and the asylum.   The distinguished medico-legist, Hoffman, com-
mended to the barbarity of the law those who " vomited nails, hair, wax,
glass, or leather," as indisputable witches.7  The "great and good" Lord
Chief Justice Hale, prompted by the medico-legal testimony of the learned
physician Sir Thos. Browne,8 illuminated thestake with witches—exem-
plifying in 1664 the practice of Anglo-American witch-laws till 1727, laws
not repealed until 1736.9  Thus did the legal medicine of our ancestors,
only five generations removed, persecute, drown, and burn  thousands of
the insane, as "fire-brands of  hell," who were "moved and seduced by
instigation of the devil."

  1 Blackstone, II. pp. 246-7.
  2 See plea of the great scholar and lawyer, Sir George McKenzie, in the " State Trial "
1688, of Sir Philip Stansfield, executed for the murder of his father.
  3 The latest American case was in New York in 1824.  (See B 349 I  d 807 1
  4 Morgagni, B.  18.                                       ' "  F'   ';
  5 Instituted at the close of 17th century as a special remedy for  poisoning  which had
become a very frequent crime in Paris.
  6 Pare, Zacchias, Hoffman, Storck, Boerner, &c, (B. 100, 2, 34, 39).
  7 " De diaboli potentia in corpora."  Hoffman died in 1742.'
  6 Author of " Religio Medici," and also of ;i Pseudoxia Epidemica," or Vulgar Errors
  9 The " witch-mania " originated  with a papal edict in 1484.  The last iudicial exeoui
j..*!.  ^..niuugu me wnui-iaws were repeaieu in ureat Britain in 1736 vet as late a<
1760 supposed witches were murdered by mobs, and there were  "witch-doctors" in 1838
In France there was a legal trial for witchcraft as late as 1818. 
ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.
7
  These few examples must suffice to recall the parentage of the Medical
Jurisprudence of  our century, and the facts that, with the impotence of
science to aid the law, it adopted miracles  as  explanations, suspicion as
proof, confession as evidence of guilt, and " torture as the chief witness,"1
summoning the medical expert  to sustain the accused  until the rack
forced confession.2

  During the hundred years now closing, the  progress of  medicine  has
been greater than in all preceding time.   To  detail the means acquired
to aid the law, would require the record of every medical discovery;  for
what one of these may not contribute to the administration of justice?
This occasion precludes more than bare suggestions illustrative of  the
general progress of medico-legal science.
  (1) Innumerable precious facts have been contributed by  every branch
of  Anatomy, and especially by  Pathological  Anatomy.   The study of
putrefaction,  fractures,  burns,  scars, marks,  stains—in fine  of every
change and injury to be found  on the  living or dead  body—has given
the skilled  expert a power (miraculous to  the ignorant) to identify  the
bod}7, to distinguish real from  apparent death, to  approximate  the date
of  death, to decide whether it be due to morbid, accidental,  or criminal
causes, and often  to point unerringly to the criminal.3   So great is this
power that medico-legal autopsies have become indispensable to justice;
and, since 1837,4 the  Microscope, strengthening notably Anatomy as also
Toxicology, has repeatedly released the innocent from the jailor's clutch,
and delivered the culprit to the  hangman.
  (2) Diagnostics, aided by stethoscope, thermometer, and many  other
instruments5 invented or  newly applied since 1776, have  stripped  the
malingerer  of power to feign  disease,  become the  corner-stone of Life
Insurance, and aided the law in many other particulars.

  1  Montesquieu, 1748.
  2  It is true that in our motherland, England,  torture was abolished in 1640 (a century
and a half earlier than in  continental Europe); but, to such extent  did suspicion replace
proof, and  the single  penalty of death overtake every species and grade of crime, that the
law had much less need than now of medical experts.  Prisoners accused of a capital crime
were not permitted any witnesses until  1702 (Blackstone, IV, p. 360);  an accusation of
infanticide sufficed for conviction, unless there was one eye-witness to the birth, until 1802
(B.  153, p. 309); and "prisoners were first allowed  the assistance of counsel" about 1830
( " Science of Law " by S. Amos, p. 312).  Even in 1769 there was " a dreadful list of 160
capital offences," and, not content with this liberal  supply of  the halter,  English  laws
provided for criminals horrible  mutilations, as branding, castration, slitting the  nostrils,
cropping the ears, and cutting off the hand, with a  medical  expert to  sear the stump;
death by exposure  and starvation ("Peine fort et dure"), till 1772, by beheading, by
drawing and quartering,  and by burning alive; and brutal  persecution of widow and
orphan by corruption of  blood  and  confiscation.   Yet  Blackstone asserts (1769),  with
evident pride, that  this " disgusting catalogue " when compared with the  criminal  codes of
other European  nations  did " honor to the  English law."  It is calculated to soften
impatient indignation to  remember  that  "it cannot be justly regarded  as  a fault in
[legislators] courts or juries not to be in  advance of the age in which they live "; and it is
encouraging to recall  that many of these barbarous laws were  repealed because courts and
juries did get so much in advance of them, that they could not  be executed.
  3  Among errors credited by the profession and corrected within the 19th century may
be mentioned here : the beliefs that the human hair could grow after death; that the  wind
of a canon-ball could destroy life; and  that violent and  fatal  injuries, which at times do
fail  to leave any visible signs externally, might also fail to present any lesions internally.
  4  Schwann and Schleiden.
  5  Spirometer,  Pneumatometer, Galvanic  and  Electric Batteries,   Ophthalmoscope,
Laryngoscope, Endoscope, Spectroscope,  Sphygmograph, Cardiograph,  Dynamometer,
^Esthesiometer, etc. 
8                               CHAILLE,

   (3) Obstetrics, until 1750 in the hands of ignorant midwives,1 conse-
quently remained a special nursery of mystery and credulity.   During
the  present century, Obstetrical Jurisprudence has rescued  from  igno-
rant superstition monsters, retarded births, superfoetation, and hermaph-
rodism ; has  discovered new signs of pregnane}', and the significance of
uterine moles2 and hydatids; has appreciated the evidences of impotence,
sterility, and "live-birth," and  has discarded the hydrostatic test3 as con-
clusive proof of the latter.  In  vindication  of chastity, the  signs  of
virginity4  have  been duly estimated, false have been distinguished from
true corpora lutea,5 and it has been proved that sexual connection  "with-
out  consent"  may be fruitful.   Finally, the "jury of matrons" has been
slowly  despoiled of  its authority to decide a question of pregnancy.   It
is mortifying to record that,  in criminal cases, the laws of some of our
States continue to  regard "quickening" as proof  of the very dawn of
life; and yet add to this  barbarism the inconsistency of admitting,  in
civil cases, the vitality of the embryo from the date  of conception.   More
than a  century ago, medico-legists,6 abandonipg a belief long universal,
taught  that life began months prior to, and  was as sacred  before as after,
maternal sensation ;  but, to the encouragement of foeticide, this ancestral
superstition7 still prevails among a free people, and  lingers in their laws.
   (4) Chemistry, since  1789, when Lavoisier gave  it a firm foundation,
has  enriched  every science, bestowing such  services  on State Medicine as
to  necessitate  the  distinct department of  Legal  Chemistry.   Two of
many  services  may  be  mentioned : the  murderer has been  deprived  of
one  refuge, which  even professional  credulity  supplied—Spontaneous
Combustion8—a mode of death yet to be witnessed  by a skilled  expert;
but  this interesting service  is insignificant when  compared with that
rendered toxicology.  Though poisons have become much more procur-
able and numerous, yet the skill of the medical chemist has so increased,
that criminal poisoning has  become,  largely through this power, one of
the  most  certainly  detected,  relativefy  infrequent, and  least  dreaded
modes of death.
   (5) By the knowledge acquired of the nervous system, medical science
has  influenced  society and law to an  extent difficult to over-estimate.

  1 A man-midwife  was first employed with  the greatest secrecy, in 1663.  In England,
men-midwives did not secure respectable professional position  until 1783.  Prof.  T.  G.
Thomas writes that in the United States the subject of obstetrics has " been recognized as
one of paramount importance  and dignity " since 1767.
  2 The French Parliament decided  in 1781  that virgins and nuns discharged moles («'. e.
" blighted ova " ) without having had sexual connection.  (B. 114, 2d Ed. I. p. 477.)
  3 The hydrostatic test  was  first practically used in legal medicine by Jan Schreyer in
1682, and was long accepted as conclusive proof of live-birth.
  4 Buffon, as also Fodere (B. 114,  in the 1st Ed. of 1796, not in the 2d Ed. of 1813),
Mahon (B. 115) and many others taught that there was no such thing as the Hymen.
  5 In the trial  of Chas. Angus (Lancaster, England), for  the  murder of Miss Burns in
1808, all  the  medical witnesses testified (to her dishonor) that  all corpora lutea without
distinction proved previous conception.
  6 Faselius, 1767 ;  Haller, 1782 ; Farr, 1788, etc.
  7 "Absurd ecclesiastical canons handed this error down from one  criminal code to nn
other."   B. 349, II. pp. 9 and 1076 ; Fodere,  etc.
  8 This  debt is due chiefly to Liebig and Bischoff (Case of the Countess of Goerlitz  1850)
Casper wrote: "It is afflicting  to be obliged in a serious scientific work in 1861 to still
spe ck of  the fable, spontaneous combustion."  A human body reduced in a few moments
to a cup of ashes!   To the credulous in this  matter, one is prompted to recall Velpeau's
attitude  in reference to the " vagitus uterinus," or capacitv of the foetus (inclosed in  its
membranes) to cry in utero—a belief long firmly attested  and universally credited   Said
\ elpeau : " ^ince learned and credible men have heard it. I will believe it-  but I* should
cot believe it if 1 had heard it myself!"                             '       S110Uld 
             ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.            9

In 1774, England enacted the first law evincing one touch of pity for the
insane; in 1792, Pinel1 adopted the first humane  treatment of their dis-
ease.   Since  then, civilization has been slowly taught  that  those upon
whom our grandfathers inflicted "the  pains of Hell" in order to thus
drive the  devil out of bodies " accursed  by Cod," are the most  pitiably
diseased of all our fellow  creatures, and we are  enabled to  point with
pride  to  the palatial asylums with which  our laws have replaced the
garrets, cellars, stables, and dungeons, where starved and tortured insanity
once writhed in filth and chains.2  The history of the Medical Jurispru-
dence  of Insanity is eloquent with the increasing number and efficiency
of the laws  designed to protect  both society and the sufferer; and with
assurances of the extension of these laws  from  insanity  to   habitual
intemperance.
  Is it too much to claim that the progress of Psychological Medicine
has  strengthened the conviction that not only mental disease, but also
hereditary organization, defective education, and circumstances for which
society is more accountable  than any of its units, do  modify  criminal
responsibility in fact, and  therefore should do so in law f  Has  not  this
special knowledge broadened man's charity, encouraged  society's efforts
to redeem its outcasts, and influenced  the law's  amelioration of its
criminal code?  Is it not forcing to the front that most important social
question,  the  problem of  heredity;  thus  disclosing an immeasurable
field for  the medical research and  legislative  labor of our descendants?
In  fine, is it  not  true  that  science, stripping nature  of providential
caprice and disheartening chance, divinely adorning her with eternal order
and  omnipotent law, has gradually  established  that the diseases and de-
formities  of the mind are as much as those of the body subject to nature's
laws;  and that the lunatic, the drunkard, the criminal, the sage, and the
fool  are  not the  products of chance,  but of laws  as  comprehensible,
though not yet as well comprehended, as those governing that thunderbolt
which, once  in the hand of Jove, now traverses even the depths of the
sea at man's command ?

  The part  this  nation has  taken in the  general  progress of Medical
Jurisprudence must  now  be  considered, and to  test our progress five
inquiries  will be  instituted.
  I. What have our Laws done to apply medical knowledge to the Administra-
tion  of Justice?—In  the  United  States  there are  probably forty-five
thousand medico-legal autopsies made annually.   The service of  a skilled
expert at these " coroner's inquests," which have exceptional opportunity
and  power to detect crime, is of inestimable importance; the opportuni-
ties there presented, if once lost, can never be regained.  Further, our
courts have annually from twenty-five hundred to treble this number of
criminal  trials necessitating medical testimony; and  of these a large
part originate from the coroner's inquests.  If to these criminal be added
all the medico-legal civil trials, it would be found, I doubt not, that our
courts require medical evidence  in  not  less than twenty thousand cases
annually.3   Whatever  the  number  may be,  it  would indicate inade-

  i b 129.
  2 In  New England, say " Wharton and Stille," the insane were sold out to the lowest
bidder  who starved them, and when violent  chained them in stables.
  3 I have  sought in vain for full and reliable statistics to illustrate  numerically the im-
portance of legal medicine. The numbers  given are only approximative estimates based
partly on some  meagre British statistics cited by Guy and by Taylor, and partly on the 
10
CHAILLE,
 quately the number of citizens whose welfare is involved, and the extent
 to which society is interested  in  the  efficient application  of medical
 knowledge to the administration of justice.
   Now, "what  are the methods which Anglo-American law adopts to
 secure in  practice that " best  attainable  evidence" which in theory it
 demands?   It entrusts  medico-legal  autopsies, which require special
 medical and some legal knowledge, to those  having neither the one  nor
 the other, except by accident;  for, these  coroners  (whose inexperience
 our law  insures  by constant " rotation  in  office") owe  their position
 wholly to political  popularity, a qualification which a competent  expert
 is most unlikely to possess.   Are these unqualified officials supplied with
 efficient aid ?  If so, again by accident, since the law leaves it to chance,
 or the coroner, or  to his still  less qualified  jury, to provide a medical
 expert; and, as is usual, accident and ignorance  provide inexperience and
 incompetence.  Could  ingenuity devise for  medico-legal autopsies  any
 methods  more  inefficient  than these,  which Anglo-American laws,
 framed before the birth of Medical Jurisprudence, have barbarously per-
 petuated ?'
   On  this Pelion of inefficiency our legislative giants have  piled an Ossa
 of  absurdity;  for,  besides  these fatal  defects in the primary legal pro-
 ceedings,  Anglo-American  law, in order to secure   "the best attainable
 evidence" for its courts, where poverty and dishonor as well as the  halter
 are administered to the free citizen, clings to a method as sadly ludicrous
 as it is antiquated.   To plaintiff and defendant the law gives full license
 to summon such medical witnesses  as each has already found reason to

 following facts as to New Orleans, La.,  for the year 1875.  The total number of coroner's
 views  and inquests was 1026; of these there were 268 inquests, and out of these grew 47
 trials.  Giving New  Orleans 210,000 and the United States  40,000,000 population, the
 New Orleans statistics would indicate for the United States annually 8952 medico-legal
 criminal trials, growing out of 51,047 medico-legal autopsies, or coroner's inquests.
  1 Convincing reasons could be given in proof that the duties of coroners are discharged
 even worse in the United  States than in England. The  following facts indicate how  the
 Anglo-American method  works in  the  latter country.  An Englishman writes (1876):
 " The  coroner is elected for life by the rate-payers of his district [a superiority over  the
 American method!, and he is paid a good salary out of the county rates. In most cases he
 is a medical  man who has studied  the arts of popularity with more success than those of
 medicine, or he is a small country attorney who has failed in the higher paths of his profes-
 sion."   Dr. Wm. Farr officially reported  as to England in 1868 :  When all the verdicts of
 coroners " for the first time came under review [another great superiority over the American
 lack of any such system], they were  not at all creditable to the intelligence of the country
 They conveyed the least possible information in the vaguest possible words."  Prof A  S
 Taylor  wrote in 1873:  " The coroner's  inquest  affords no certainty for the detection of
 crime.  It, in some instances, tends to screen a criminal."  " In the course of thirty years'
 practice, at least fifteen cases of the exhumation of dead  bodies were referred to me   On
 some of these  inquests had been held, but no inspections were made.  Verdicts of death
 from cholera or natural causes had been returned, and at intervals of  from one to twentv
 two months  the bodies have been disinterred, and it was then proved that the deceased Der
 sons had died  from poison." (See B. 358, I. p. 12.)   The British Medical Journal (Jan'
 18 < 6) reports a glaring case of poisoning, undetected by the incompetent coroner   National
 attention was recently attracted to the same monstrous evil in the inquest of a Mr Bravo
 An English  writer asserts that " almost every day, from all parts of England tales come up
 of the inadequacy and absurdity of the  institution.   Notice has been given to dav TMnv
 23d 1876] in the House of Commons, by an independent member on thl  ministerial side
 that he will  call attention to the office ot coroner  at an early day "  Other facts indi^tp
that England recognizes this evil better than does the United States, and therefore wiU
probably correct it sooner.  July^18 <6, it was reported that  » the practice of electing coro
ners has been condemned in the House of Commons by a  unanimous vote   A hillIf   th
reform of the office of coroner is soon to be brought in."  See also B. 259,' 274  and 330 
ADDRESS ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.
11
believe entertain opinions the most contradictory.1  Who are these partisan
witnesses thus  summoned by the  law  to apply the  power of medical
knowledge to the administration of justice ?   Surely these legal represen-
tatives of science must be competent  experts ?   No.—Well, experienced
and educated physicians of repute?  No.—Then, of course graduates, at
least some fledgling hatched in  nine months, and fully feathered with
the plumes of every branch of medicine, Medical Jurisprudence included ?
No,  not  indispensable, since " as a general  rule"  it has been  adjudged
that any practitioner of medicine (that  is, any man  who dubs himself
Doctor)  has sufficient knowledge  of  medical  science to furnish justice
with its  " best attainable evidence."2  "0, [this] offence is rank, it smells
to Heaven '."
   Common  sense would presume that laws, so prodigal to ignorance and
pretension,  would provide means to test the  value of  scientific opinions
by eliciting the facts upon which, if valid, they  must  be founded.   Not
so ; since these  opinions  are  replies  to questions, which often by their
very structure comically prove entire  ignorance of  the facts involved ;
for they  are propounded by  lawyers to  whom these facts are unknown.
Finally,  it would be presumed that the decision  as  to  the  weight due
such opinions would be left to  a  judge or jury specially chosen.  No,
even this last poor boon is denied by the law I
   AVith  the  power of medical  science thus  crippled at the coroner's
inquest,  then prostituted by the partisan opinions of incompetent experts,
then perverted by advocates, and at last when  emasculated of all  vigor
submitted  for  decision to those unable to estimate  its  weight; what
wonder  that such gross  misapplication of medical  knowledge  brings
upon it  that  public  contempt which belongs justly to methods so mon-
strous, and to which true medical knowledge is a helpless, pitiable, and
disgusted victim I
   But these legal defects, so paralyzing to the  past, so discouraging  to

   1 Reference is often made to the well-known facts that the sound expert-evidence of the
illustrious John Hunter was in 1781 overborne by the evidence of  three ignoramuses,  and
that the testimony of the- famous Denman was in 1806 set  aside by the Court in favor of
one male and  two female quacks.  The same system is continued,  and therefore the same
evils persist.  Prof. A. S. Taylor reports now, as to England, that  a good search and good
pay can always find, in abundance, the witnesses  needed on either side of any medico-legal
issue.  This is certainly true as to the United States.  Some facts may be cited in illus-
tration.  I have personal experience in a suit (unsoundness of a slave) in which the medical
experts were  selected by one side because of their well-known ignorance of the special
knowledge (auscultation) which the issue involved ; and the judge decided that the whole
medical testimony must be set aside, because the negative evidence of the incompetent suf-
ficed to counterbalance the very positive affirmative testimony of  the competent experts.
Death, with a post-mortem examination, soon after the decision, conclusively proved that
the ignoramuses deserved no consideration in justice, though they did receive equiponderant
consideration  in law.  Whenever a notorious trial attracts  public  attention, the results of
our defective laws become disgracefully apparent, as has been illustrated in recent years by
the Steinecke-Schoeppe (1868), the Wharton-Ketchum (1872), and the Stokes-Fisk (1874)
trials (B.  363, 344, 370).  If the medico-legal proceedings are so discreditable in cases  like
these, exciting great public interest and engaging the best legal and medical talent, what
probably are they in ordinary trials lacking these advantages ?
   2 The text will be found fully sustained  by reference to B. 317, pp. 131-2, B. 349, I. pp.
283-5, and B. 363, p. 406.   However, Elwell (B. 330,  p. 589) refers to eight decisions to
the effect  that " special  knowledge must be fully established before a witness can be  ex-
amined as an expert;" but had he stated by what slight  proofs, and  by what incompetent
judges, this "special knowledge must be  fully established," the apparent discrepancy would
have practically disappeared.   An eminent lawyer assures me that in the courts of my
native State (Mississippi) the competency of a medical expert rests solely on his own oath;
and that,  when his own interests and reputation prompt such an oath! 
 12                             CHAILLE,

 the future of Anglo-American Medical Jurisprudence, are not the only
 disadvantages  against which  this  nation has had to  contend.   It in-
 herited  from Creat  Britain not even  a page of the  literature, in  fact
 nothing  of Medical Jurisprudence except  laws  hostile  to it.   So desti-
 tute  was it of  those indispensable  promoters of  science, well  endowed
 institutions, with libraries, laboratories, and museums ;  so exhausted by
 the war for independence ; so closely occupied  by the pressing demands
 of daily life; and so profitably absorbed by glorious efforts to present to
 civilization a savage continent, that every  science seems  to have required
 half  our century to  secure the conditions necessary to  fairly  begin its
 culture.1   Another potent, yet ill-appreciated friend to  science, pressure
 of population, now wanting in many, was  long wanting  in every State.
 Finally, while  a European nation  requires but one legislative body to
 reform its laws, our political system now necessitates the  action of thirty-
 eight State-legislatures to embrace the entire  nation.
   Just  consideration of all these impediments  should incline  other
 nations not to condemn, if we have done little for Medical Jurisprudence,
 but rather to wonder that we have done anything at all; and to con-
 gratulate us that, so great has been  the diffusion of knowledge, so ardent
 the love  of justice, we have in the main  kept  pace with, and in  some
 particulars have even outstripped, our mother-land.  Fairly we can claim
 no more;  reasonably no more should be expected.
   II.  What have our Medical Colleges done to cultivate and  to disseminate a
 knowledge of Medical Jurisprudence?—The  first  chair of  Medical  Juris-
 prudence was  established by the "College  of  Physicians  and Surgeons"
 of New York  City, and filled by  Prof. Stringham,2 in  1813.   In 1815
 two  other Colleges3 had  chairs  devoted  to  the  usual  branches  with
 Medical  Jurisprudence  attached to some  one of these.   In  1825  there
 were about  twenty-two  medical colleges; of  these only one had a full
 chair, and only five  others had even" the fraction of a  chair devoted
 to the subject.4   At  present (1875-6)   there  are sixty-four regular
 medical colleges (four of these for women).  A report5 as to forty-six of

   1 To illustrate this as to medicine, and also the practical difficulty encountered bv the
 courts in securing,  under our laws, the evidence of competent experts, the followin"- 'facts
 are stated: Prof. S. D. Gross reports that in 1776 the United States had about 3000 prac-
 tising  physicians, of whom the great majority had never received a medical education  and
 those who had, were educated abroad.  Prof. Austin Flint,  Sr., reports that in 1776 our
 two medical colleges (one founded in Philadelphia in  1768, the other in New York City in
 1770)  had not graduated even fifty doctors of medicine, and that up to 1800 the five colleges
 then existing had  graduated only about two hundred.  Thacher's " History of Medical
 Science in the United States" reports that it was computed that in 1826 the United States
 had 10,000 " very easily graduated" doctors of medicine, and more than 15,000 practitioners
 without diplomas   Prof. John B Beck wrote that,  » at no period in  the history of this
 country, it may safely be asserted, has empiricism flourished to the same fearful extent as
 t  ^-Hu^V™^1845}' notwithstanding our  boasted  improvements in other respects"
|lnl8i"'nSf..L,,lted   ^ ^^i8^ Petitioners of medicine; of these theS weKr-
sZal ranks  Vei7 ^    Sraduated  doctors, and at least 15,000 quacks outside of profes-
  2 Dr. Stringham was  also the  first lecturer on Medical Jurisprudence in  tW TTnitod
States, viz., in New York City in 1804.                 ^unspruaence in  the United
  3 In 1815 "The College of Physicians and Surgeons  of the Western  District of N™
York" appointed Dr. T. R. Beck '"Professor of the Institutes of Medidne       L
Medical Jurisprudence;" aiid the  Medical Department oiuJ^^Z^y^^^
prudeic^      ^ alter Channing" Professor of Midwifery and of iidiS j&

  s n6 "+Thacher's *J istory of Medical Science in the United States, 1828 "
    Due to the courtesy of (my  colleague  on this occasion) Prof. N. S Davis M D of
Chicago, 111.  'Jhe forty-six graduate more than nine-tenths  of „u „„,  „    7  '  ,  "' 0l
The twenty-five graduate fully one-half of the whole number            "al ^duates. 
             ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.           13

the most noted, shows that twenty-one do not profess to teach the subject;
of the remaining twenty-five, only fourteen (and these not the best known
and attended) have professorships devoted exclusively to Medical Juris-
prudence, and, by five of these fourteen, students are  taught to become
medical experts by lawyers ;* while the other eleven have Medical Juris-
prudence "tacked on as a caudal appendage" to  some one of the usual
branches.  In fine, only about one-half of even our best colleges profess
to pay any special attention to the subject;  and  many  facts could be
cited to prove that the true significance of the whole matter, from 1813
to the present day, is correctly represented  by the following quotations
from one of the most prominent of our living medico-legists:—2
  " There  are very few of the medical colleges in which it is taught, and
still fewer in which  it takes rank as a distinct and independent branch
along with the other departments.  Usually when it professedly receives
any attention at all, it is tacked on, as a sort of appendix, to some other
branch with which it has no natural affinity whatever, as, e.g., Obstetrics
or Materia Medica.  This is of course done to make a show on the pro-
gramme, while the subject itself is  not taught systematically to  the
student, if taught at all."   "I very much doubt whether Medical Juris-
prudence  is ever made a qualification  for graduation,  even  in those
colleges where it is professedly taught as one of the regular branches."3
   From these facts it  is  manifest that, since 1813, our colleges (the off-
spring  of  the enterprise of individuals, and not of the State) have made
ineffectual efforts to cultivate that special  knowledge  which, while
highly beneficial to the State, would not benefit the individual  members
of our profession any more directly than any other citizens.  In fact, the
States through these citizens have failed to  provide honorable and profit-
able employment for medico-legal experts,  and, therefore, the profession
has not furnished them ; and, however enlightened the colleges, however
praiseworthy their efforts, they will continue to contend  in vain against
the obstinate " demand and supply law" of  political economy.
   The  profession  recognizes the absurdity of the popular and legal  pre-
sumption  that every practitioner is a medical  expert;  but the profession
does not yet recognize sufficiently that even the most  skilful healers of
disease are neither necessarily nor generally medico-legists ; and that the
experience of other nations has fully proved that merely didactic lectures
can never render medical graduates competent experts.  Were this feasi-
ble, any such ideal education  is now impracticable;  for who will deny
(1) that our two  short courses of lectures are  insufficient for proper
instruction even in the fundamental facts indispensable to the education
of practitioners of medicine; (2) that the fundamental facts for the prac-
titioner are the same as for the medical  expert;  and (3)  that  society
remunerates the one, while the State finds no use for the other ?   Finally,
there is reason to fear that, until the State  demands medical experts, the
colleges, dependent on the student and not on  the State  for their exist-
encef will be forced by these practical students to realize  continually the

  1 Casper  insists, with  good reason, that the medico-legist should remain a physician;
and become neither a lawyer, jurisconsult, nor judge, but simply an expert witness, who
does need from the law thorough instruction in the " rules of evidence."
  2 John J.  Eeese, M.D., Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in the University of Penn-
sylvania. (See B. 247 and 362.)                            .
  3 Some only of our Law Schools have professorships of Medical Jurisprudence ; and there
is good  reason to believe that the general facts as to the Medical are fully applicable to
the Law Schools, as far as instruction in Legal Medicine is concerned.
        3 
14
CHAILLE,
force of the homely adage, "you may take a horse to the water, but you
cannot force him to drink."
   III.  What new Facts have Americans added, by original research, to the com-
mon stock of Medico-legal Science?—Restricting the list to researches design-
edly and specially medico-legal, it must  be borne in mind that  the sum
total of these in all  nations has not been very large, and that few should be
expected in this country for reasons already stated.   Prof. John C. Dalton
(though to some extent anticipated by Coste (1849) whose researches were
unknown to Dalton) was the  first  (1851) to make a rigid comparison
between the corpus.luteum of menstruation and that of pregnancy ; and
to distinctly indicate  the differences which, during a  certain  period,
enable  the expert to determine from  an inspection of the ovaries whether
pregnancy has or has not existed.1  Dr. Joseph (1. Richardson announced
in 1869 the important  medico-legal  discovery that, by the proper  appli-
cation of high  powers  of  the microscope, human  blood-corpuscles  could
with certainty be discriminated from those of certain animals;2  thereby
enabling the expert to refute such  statements  as  criminals  have often
offered to explain the presence of condemnatory stains of  blood.   Though
the justice of this  claim has been questioned, yet  some of  the  highest
authorities emphatically sustain it;  and this discovery has been usefully
applied in several criminal trials.3 Dr. Richardson deserves the additional
credit of having called  attention in 18754 to a simple method of so treat-
ing a blood-stain, of even microscopic size, that it can  be  successfully
examined by  the  spectroscope  and guaiacum test,5 as  well as by the
microscope.
   Researches by which  error is exposed, or truth more firmly established,
are often  as important to science as  those which discover new  facts.
Among such researches may be  mentioned those of John  B. Beck, on
Ploucquet's6 and on the  hydrostatic test,7 in 1817  and subsequently ; of
Horner, on  the mucous membranes of the stomach  and  intestines, in
1827; of Gross, on strangling,  in 1833; of Wetherill, on adipocere,8 in
1855 ; and of Fleming, on blood-stains, in 1859.9
   Contributions by my countrymen to the progress of Medical Jurispru-

  1 See  B. 257; also, Coste's second livraison, "Histoire du Developpement" 1849- and
the adoption of Coste's views in Longet's " Traite de Physiologie," II. p. 88, 1850
  « " An objective & to T'0- inch distinguishes human blood-corpuscles in stains (but not in
^^oTo^^Ul0'" those of the ox'  Pte. sheeP- cat, horse, deer, and goat."   (See
H. 6Z0, did, d<4, 3(6, Sit.)                                                 v
  3 Since the delivery  of  this address, eminent microscopists have  made  on the pre-
SlH   TS'T, First, that the word "discovery" is misused-since it has
 hi     llf0™ tbat tl!e b °od;cuorPuscles of  the "certain animals" are much smaller
than  those of man  as  also  that high  powers render this difference in size  more  appa-
rent.   Second, that the words "with certainty" demand a modifying explanXn snTce
able observers declare that  cases do  occur  wherein human corpuscles m dried s a ns
shrank, so as to be as small as those  of the  »certain  animals": hence, that the  expert
when confronted with  such smal  corpuscles cannot  swear  " with ceiinty" whetl
these be human; but if the specimen  of corpuscles approximate those o  man 7size
 hen the expert can  swear " with certainty" that they are not those of anyone of the
 certain animals," inasmuch  as corpuscles in dried stains do shrink, but do no enlarge
I he issue thus raised is as to the amount of shrinkage of human red  blood-cSrpusc es hi
dried stains ; Dr. Richardson asserts that this does not exceed ten top cpnt  3f  tl
assert that this may be thirty  per cent., the corpuscle shllmr in   ze  to   i   "o™
even to ^j,1^ inch.                                        °    slz,e  L0 4 3iJ5> or
  « ns?5'             r TanaD?en< 1862> and A. S. Taylor, 1868.
   llbZ-              7 Jan Schreyer, 1682                si?       -,»„? „
  9 See B. 205, 215, 225, 267, 287.  To  this list mMit be  added B' ™T™7, l,785"7, •
ments in 1851 on Cadaveric Rigidity. (Am. Journ Wl Sci! Oct 1851 :feqUard S exPeri" 
ADDRESS ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.
15
 dence during a century, present  a  field for investigation  so  extensive,
 that some of these contributions may have escaped my search, or may
 have been inadequately appreciated.  To rectify, at  least in some mea-
 sure, any such defects,  I present, with this  address, a Bibliography of
 American Medical Jurisprudence, to which  attention  is invited"  The
 next inquiry is:—
   IV.  What culture of Medico-legal Science is evinced by  our Literature ?
   1. General Treatises.—The embryonic stage of medico-legal  litera-
 ture in our  mother-tongue is attested by the'following " footprints on
 the sands  of time."  Farr's " Elements of Medical Jurisprudence,"1 an
 abridged translation of Faselius, was the first general treatise in the
 English language, and  the only one  from 1788 to 1815, when  another
 worse little  duodecimo was added by Bartley.2  In 1816 Male contributed
 an  insignificant  " Epitome  of  Forensic  Medicine,"3  borrowed  from
 Plenck,4 and in 1821 John Gordon Smith, M.D., published a small book,.
 which  was the first original and meritorious treatise in our language.5
   In 1823 appeared, in two large octavo volumes, the  American, Theo-
 dric Romej-n Beck's  "  Elements of Medical Jurisprudence,"6 which, in
 spite of the merit of Smith's book, and of the greater merit of Paris's and
 Fonblanque's English   treatise,7  also published  in  1823,  quickly sup-
 planted these wherever the English  language  was spoken.  From the
 date of its  publication, which may  be deemed the origin, in  fact, of
 Anglo-American medico-legal science, its twelve successive editions have
 ably kept pace with the progress of legal medicine.  Filling man}' offices
 of trust and honor, a  member of twenty American and seven  foreign
 scientific societies, Prof. Beck8 lived to witness the issue of ten editions
 of his treatise ; of these, several were published  in England, and even the
 prolific mother of  medico-legal  literature issued in 1828  a translated
 German edition.  But to Beck's merit no testimony can be more con-
 vincing or pleasing than that gracefully given  by the three eminent
 authors whose works eventually succeeded  in largely supplanting his
 treatise in Great Britain.  Traill, the  distinguished Scotch professor and
 author, eulogizes it as "the best work on the general subject which has
 appeared  in  the English  language;"9 Guy "acknowledges his obliga-
 tions in a special manner to  Beck's  learned and elaborate Elements of
 Medical Jurisprudence ;"10  and Taylor, than whom  there is no higher
 living  authority, testifies that he,  when a student, was stimulated by
 Beck's  work to study medical jurisprudence in 1825,  when no lectures
 were delivered in  England on the subject, and this book was the  leading
 authority  for both  lawyers and  physicians;  and that it  " will  carry
 down"  the author's " name to future years as one of the  most erudite and
 distinguished writers on medical jurisprudence."11
   To these testimonials from abroad may be added the eloquent eulogy
 of that son of America whom its medical profession delights to honor as
 one  of its noblest  representatives, and as its President on this occasion.
 His  voice, generous to  all, even  loving  to worth, declares that "this
 o-rand book" " was in its day the  most comprehensive,  able, and  erudite
 production on the subject of which it treats in any language," and  that
 it "constitutes a  lasting monument to the genius, industry, judgment,

  » B. 150, also 207.                2 B. 151.               3 B. 152, also 207.
  4 b. 47.          s b. 153.      6 B. 209.               7 B.  154.
  8 Born in 1791; died in 1855.  For the biographies of Drs. T. R. Beck, John B. Beck,
and Moreton  Stille, see Gross's "American Medical Biography," 1861.
  » B. 158, 2d Ed.                 10 B. 161, 2d Ed.          » B. 359. 
16
CHAILLE,
and learning of its lamented author."1  It is pleasing to learn  from the
same source"that, in honoring this famous author, we are honoring the
memory of a good and noble man;  and this pleasure is enhanced by re-
calling the humble estimate which he himself accorded to his " world-
renowned  book."  For his own statements were that his "highest ambi-
tion would be gratified" if his " collection of detached essays" should " in
some tolerable  degree" "prove  useful."  Knowing  that  these modest
words will find a generous echo in the  hearts of all  noble  men, to them
is commended  the fame of America's first  and  greatest  medico-legal
author.
   In 1850, Prof. Amos Dean, a lawyer, published his brief but excellent
text-book, the " Principles of Medical Jurisprudence,"2 which has passed
through three editions.
   A lawyer and a physician united to produce in 1855  the voluminous
and admirable general treatise, " Wharton and Stille's Medical Jurispru-
dence."3  After completion, but  prior to its publication, profession and
country had cause to mourn  the death of  the young and gifted Moreton
StilleV  His legal associate,  deriving from other able pens indispensable
medical aid, has lived to issue three editions of a work which both  pro-
fessions accept as one of the highest standard authorities.
   Evidence of our increasing appreciation of legal medicine, as also of
our  obligations to foreign  sources, is found in the republication, since
1819, of nine  books by British  authors on the  general subject,  viz.,
Cooper's collection  of the earliest English tracts (1819), and the nume-
rous valuable articles in the  "Cyclopaedia  of Practical Medicine" (1845),
which deserve mention with the  general treatises of Ryan (1832), Chittv
(1836), Traill (1811), Guy (1845),  and Woodman and Tidy (1876); and
of still greater value  Taylor's "Manual," as also  his "Principles and
Practice of Medical Jurisprudence" (1845 to 1873).5
  2. Treatises, Essays, etc., on Special Subjects.—Besides the excellent
books of Ray, Elwell, Ordronaux, Wormley, Reese, and  the New York
" Medico-Legal  Society," the essays  and articles on  special topics have
been too numerous to permit full  examination, or more than a partial
sketch of this important branch of my subject.
  Infanticide and foeticide received from Prof. John B. Beck attention in
1817 ;6 and this  thesis, enlarged and improved for the various editions of
his brother's "great work," displays a combination of erudition, original
research, sound sense, and rhetorical excellence, which render it one of the
most classical essays in the medical literature of the English lano-ua^e.
Abortion has  been further illustrated  by the essays ofP Hod<re f 1839"
1873), Storer (1866, 1867), Heard (1868), and others ;7 as also by iiumerous
valuable articles m our  periodical literature.8  Apparently increasing
with the pressure of population, this stain on  modern civilization has
become one of the most serious and hopeless problems within the province
of Legal Medicine, and demands the grave consideration of every enlio-ht-
ened citizen.                                                     b

  1 See pp. 39, 65, "History of American  Medical Literature"  (1776-18761 bv S D
Gross, 1816.                                           v        ''  J

  5 B.' 207,' 245, 223, 231, 239, 246, So^, 358.            I bTo^22 5 ^ 1855"
  7 B. 236, 279, 305, 309, 314. 310,  315, 325, 341.               '
  8 In the "Specimen Fasciculus of a Catalogue of the National .Medical Librarv " 1876
pp. 24-o, are  reported from our medical journals thirtv-nine artiHP<? on +h;« *„k;"U+  •
1825, by Americans; of these, twenty-thie have been^Stl t£^te^rs.81^ 
ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.
17
  El well's " Malpractice and Medical Evidence"1 (1860,1871) and Ordro-
naux's "Jurisprudence of Medicine"2 (1869)  are  very valuable works—
legal rather than medical—and unique, it is believed, in medico-legal litera-
ture.   In connection with malpractice, Hamilton's noted essay on "De-
formities after Fractures"3 (1855) and  his standard treatise on "Fractures
and Dislocations" (1860-1875) deserve mention, since more than half of
all trials in the  United States for malpractice have originated from the
results of these  injuries.4
  Supplied  with  domestic  editions  of  Orfila (1819, 1826), Christison
(1845), and Taylor  (1848-1875), on Poisons, and  with Naquet's Legal
Chemistry (1876),5 native authors have produced  two meritorious works
on Toxicology.   Wormley's  "Micro-Chemistry of Poisons"6 (1867) has
received the most flattering commendation from  the highest authorities,
who report this book to be the result of original  researches which enrich
it with  the treasures  most  valuable to  science.   Xo more will be  said,
because the author is not only living but present,and no praise from me can
enhance the reputation of his work.  The same  considerations prohibit
more than reference to Reese's  excellent " Manual of Toxicology"7 (1874),
which has been republished in  London.
  On the most  important specialty, America has produced one treatise,
Ray's " Medical Jurisprudence of  Insanity."8  In 1838, when first  pub-
lished, there were few such treatises extant,9 and  it at once assumed, and
throughout an  English,  a  Scotch,  and  five American editions,  has
deservedly maintained, the first rank in Anglo-American medical litera-
ture.   An able  advocate of " moral mania"—the present battle ground
in the  Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity—Dr.  Ray does  not  forget,
while  urging a larger charity for disease,  to demand ample and better
leo-al  means  to protect  society.  Besides this treatise,  essays of value
have  been  published  by Hammond (1866, 1873),  Fisher  (1872), and
Cowperthwait  (1876),10 and  numerous  meritorious reports  and articles
have richly adorned our periodical  literature.11  It would require a volume
to do  justice to  the medico-legal labors of the Superintendents of our
Insane Asylums,  and to record the evidences of progress presented solely
in the "American Journal of Insanity;" while some of  the most valua-
ble essays on  this and other special subjects  are to be found  in the  pub-
lications of the Xew York Medico-Legal Society.12
  There are four other works which, treating incidentally of the Medical
Jurisprudence of Insanity, deserve mention: the  notable "Diseases of
the Mind" (1812-1835), by Benj. Rush, a father of this republic and " the
father of its medical literature;" Seguin's "Idiocy" (1866); Echeverria's
"Epilepsy" (1870);  and Hammond's " Diseases of the Nervous System"
(1871-1876).13
  Fourteen foreign books  on  insanity have been  republished  in the
United States.  Five treat specially of its legal  relations, viz., those  by

  i B  290                2 B. 317.               3 B. 266.
  * B.' 330, pp. 55 and 587 ; and B. 213.               5 B. 206, 212, 244. 252, 389.
  e B. 307.                7 B. 362.               8 B. 234.
  9 Viz.:  Haslam's. 1807; Hoifbauer's, 1809; Georget's, 1827; Cnnolly's, 1830.
  10 B. 304, 338,  348, 385.
  " B  216, 265, 275. 278, 282, 283, 284, 285, 295, 296, 302, 304, 311, 316, 322, 323, 324,
327  331, 332, 347,  353, 354, 357. 365.  366. 368, 369, 379.
  In addition to  the above, Dr. John S. Billings. U. S.  A. (Surgeon-General's Library) has
kindly furnished  a selected list of 88 medico-legal articles by Americans on unsoundness of
mind •  of these, the first was in 1827 ;  79 since 1850; and 41 of the 88  since 1865.
  12 b. 363.                                      ,3 B. 203, 303, 321, 326. 
18
CHAILLE,
 High more  (1822), Blandford (1871), Maudsley  (1874), Sheppard (1875),
 and Browne (1876) -,1 and nine  treat of these relations  incidentally, viz.,
 those by Combe (1834), Prichard (1837), Esquirol (1845), Brierre de Bois-
 mont (1855), Bucknill  and Tuke (1858), AYinslow (1860,1866), Maudsley
 (1867, 1871), Tuke (1873), and Wyliter (1873).2
   This incomplete sketch of our medico-legal literature attests that it has
 since its origin progressively  increased, and that a very large proportion
 has been furnished during the last ten years; thus indicating a diffusion
 of this  knowledge to  an  extent which encourages the hope that such
 appreciation of its importance is in growth as will insure its proper use.
   That  our progress in this literature may  be properly estimated, as far
 at least as increase of quantity is concerned, it is indispensable to com-
 pare it  with  that of other nations.  As concerns general treatises, this
 nation, beginning  in 1823, has produced  three;3 Germany, beginning a
 century earlier, published  at least forty  before, and more than twenty
 since 1823 ;4 France beginning in 1796 published nine before, and seven
 since ;5 and Great  Britain, making its first creditable effort in 1821, pub-
 lished its second in 1823. and  has issued  eight  since.6   If a comparison
 as to special treatises be instituted, a like result ensues, and a search into
 periodical literature proves even more unfavorable. Since 1782, Germany
 alone  has had, and now has, several journals of great merit devoted ex-
 clusively to Legal  Medicine, from which flow, to the benefit of all nations,
 a constant stream of medico-legal  knowledge.   France has had, only
 since  1829, one of the ablest journals7 in the  world  devoted  to State
 Medicine, but not one  to Medical  Jurisprudence  exclusively.  Great
 Britain has no such journal, nor has this nation  except in so far as repre-
 sented, since 1874, by  the valuable "Psychological  and  Medico-Legal
 Journal" of Prof. Hammond.
   These facts tend to prove that  the culture of  medico-legal literature
 is proportionate to the  use made of it by the law ; and prompt the com-
 ment  that,  however valuable compilations may  be,  these and the pro-
 gress of every science  depend ultimately on original  research, and the
 labor of practical workers.  Germany has produced many, France several,
 and Great Britain one or  two, practical medico-leo;al experts of wide-
 spread fame.   This people has never had, nor is it~likelv to have, one
 until it provides for him honorable and lucrative employment.
   V. What illustrations  of medico-legal progress are to be found in the Insti-
 tutions, Laws, and Judicial Decisions of our States?—Originated  by vital
 statistics, nourished by  medical selection, protected by medical evidence
 Lite Insurance, the wondrous child of Medicine and Finance encourages
 the  hope that it  will  repay  our  science the debt  it owes   Causing
 numerous medico-legal suits, its vast interests are deeply involved in the
 legal  reforms  indispensable to the progress of  Medical  Jurisprudence •
 tor these interests  are often sacrificed by the negligence of coroners 8 the'
 incompetence of experts, and the inefficiency of our medico-Wal methods
 While Life Insurance suits have most frequently orown  out of intern'
 perance and suicide, yet there would seem to be few medical issues on
 which they may not depend, even on whether death was due to consump-

  ' B. 208, 334, 371, 382, 388.      « B. 226, 232,243, 270, 286 297 313 <m qfin ofil
  3 B. 209, 254, 264.             * B. 29 to 94.       '   '  £' r  i ?™' 3,6,?' 36L
  * B. 153 to 164.               7 Annale8 d.Hygifene et de MedeHnP A  i  p  •
  ■ The issue has recently been raised, in  reference to a case the subW^f  '  ^,
inquest, whether  death was  due  to  intemperance  or  to^ heart dis«3J  A   a,COro,Qers
autopsy would have probably  prevented any'such issue, bntZ^t^ljn^^1 
ADDRESS  ON MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.
19
tion or  to diphtheria.1  To  illustrate the  progress and extent  of the
medico-legal interests involved,  it deserves record  that, in  1840, there
were in  the United States only three or four companies having an insig-
nificant  amount  of business;  that  in  1874  there were seventy-seven
companies insuring £2,226,000,000 upon 910,000  policies; and that the
annual average number of lives insured during the  past three years has
exceeded 200,000.2
  The growth of Life Insurance is one of many examples which illustrate
the  fact that the importance of  Medical Jurisprudence has  constantly
increased  with the progress of medicine, and the requirements of civili-
zation.  None the less, there are instances where, through legal and
other causes, the bounds of Legal  Medicine have  been  restricted.
   When suicide ceased to be a felony,3 it ceased to concern Legal Medicine,
except when the suicide's life was insured; feigned  diseases  have under
our  laws little importance; and, with the abolition of imprisonment for
debt, and  of slaveiy, there disappeared from the courts many medico-legal
questions.   To education,4 Forensic Medicine owes a diminution of  its
duties in  deciding  the degree of criminal  responsibility of the deaf and
dumb;  allot' whom, long  held as " legal  idiots" under the " perpetual
pupillage  of  the law," were  disabled from making a contract, will, or
valid  marriage.   Possessing  no  institutions  for their education  until
1817,5the United States had,  in 1875, forty-eight institutions, with 5309
pupils, so  that " nearly all the deaf mutes of school-age within  the country
are now receiving instruction"; and,  since "all pupils on leaving school
take their places  as responsible members of society, in possession of full
civil rights,"  they cease to be of special medico-legal interest.6
   In this, as in every civilized nation, the best examples of medico-legal
progress are furnished by the institutions, laws, and decisions benefiting

  1  I have  been summoned (1876), as a medical expert, to testify  to my opinion as to
whether a death was due to consumption, as  the main issue, and, sacondarily, whether due
to consumption or to diphtheria.
  2  For these statistical facts I am indebted  to Mr. 0. C. Hine, Editor of the Insurance
Monitor,  Xo.  176 Broadway, New York City.   Mr. Cornelius  AValford, of London, the
highest authority on this subject, has kindly  furnished,  for comparison with the United
States,  the  following among  other interesting facts :  Life Insurance was begun in  the
United  Kingdom (Great Britain) on  a scientific basis in 1762, and reached its maximum in
1865-1868 ;  in 1874 there were 120 companies, which issued 47,516 policies, and  had in
force an unstated number of total policies insuring £362,238,534.   In France it was first
legalized  in  1787, and fettered with many legal restrictions which were removed  in 1819;
in 1870 there were 166,474 Life Policies, insuring £66,312,000, and 58.572  annuity con-
tracts,  securing  annual annuities  amounting  to £1,528,600; and  in 1874 there were  72
companies, having in force an unstated number of total policies insuring £49,906,400.   In
Germany  (including German Austria and German Switzerland) Life Insurance was  begun
in 1827 ; in  1874 there were 51 companies, having in force 645,989 policies insuring a little
under £100,000,000; and the  new policies issued  in one year  (1873)  were 98,692.
  3 By English law the suicide was required  to be  buried  in  a highway " with a stake
driven through the body" (repealed in 1823), and his property confiscated.   Juries, more
humane than  the law, generally decided that suicides were insane, and  therefore irre-
sponsible.  Beck in  1823 (B. 209, 1st Ed.) congratulates the United States that " we do
not war on the dead body in this country."
  4 The Abbe de l'Epee published in 1759  the first modern method to teach mutes, by
sign-language.  To him and to his disciple, the Abbe Sicard, civilization owes the initiation
of'the education of mutes.   The first educational institution was established in France in
1760.  Europe had about thirty of these institutions in 1817.
  5 The first institution founded in the United  States was the American Asylum, Hartford,
Conn., 1817.
  6 I am  greatly indebted for the above statistical and other interesting facts to Mr. I. L.
Peet, Superintendent of the  New York  Institution,  the second  one founded in the United
States,  viz.,  in 1818.  (See B. 340.) 
20                             CHAILLE,
all  who, no longer possessed or seduced by a legalized devil, are in fact
afflicted with " unsoundness of  mind," from mental disease, deformity,
or  debility.1   By legislation  many  measures  (still very  incomplete  in
most, and'not complete in any, of our States) have been adopted for the
counter-protection of both the insane and the sane.  The corner-stone of
these measures has been the establishment of Insane Asylums.  Beginning
our national existence with two  of these, having only eleven in 1830, we
now possess about eighty public asylums,accommodating more than 30,000
of our  45,000 insane population.2  The knowledge derived  from  these
schools for scientific observation, is  destined  to benefit those without,
even  more than those within, their walls.  Stimulated by this knowl-
edge, the  law is extending its protection, from insanity, to all  who by
intemperance  "have lost the power of  self-control."   In this  reform,
New  York, in 1854, pioneered  the way with  the first legislation  pro-
viding  for the restraint in a public asylum of  habitual drunkards.  In
1858,'tliis  State, as also Massachusetts, supplied the asylums indispensable
for the execution of  the law.   With an origin thus recent, there are  now
at least seven asylums in five States, and four additional  States  have
legislated  to  accomplish the same end.3   The  best  interests of  society
require that  this progress shall  continue  until the  laws of every State
provide for every person, whose abuse of his  own liberty outrages the
rights of others, ample protection both for himself and for  society.4
  "Maine and New York illustrate additional progress in the jurisprudence
of insanity.   It is conceded that, within this century, unfortunates have
been  legally murdered for illegal acts, the product of disease and not of
a " vicious will."  To prevent these " bitter mockeries of justice," Anglo-
American  law, so jealous of the "liberty of the subject,"  fails  not only
to provide him, when his  life is imperiled through brain-disease,  with
competent experts, but also to provide these with proper time and oppor-
tunity  to  decide a question so  difficult as  doubtful sanity.  It is not
strange that  decisions  reached  through  such  defective  means should
cause  constant dissatisfaction, nor that  this  should have  been more
serious prior to the establishment of State Lunatic Asylums;  for it then
occurred that he who might be acquitted of homicide, because of insanity,
was freed  by the law, and permitted to live a constant danger to society.5
  Maine, in 1847, wisely enacted that " when any person is indicted for
a criminal offence, or is committed to jail  on a charge thereof,  .

  1 This progress has been especially notable since 1830.
  2 For these statistics I am indebted to Dr. John P.  Gray (my colleague on this occasion),
who reports  54 State Asylums in 1875, accommodating 21,542 patients; 9 State Asylums
in process of erection  to accommodate  4600; 18 other public asylums accommodating
6064;  and 10 private asylums accommodating 254 insane.
  3  Our effective Inebriate Asylums are : the Washingtonian Home, Boston Mass.  since
1858;  the State Inebriate Asylum, Binghamton,  N. Y., since 1858; the  Inebriates'
Home, King's Co., N. Y., since 1867; the Washingtonian Home, Chicago, III, since 1864-
the  Sanitarium,  Media, Pa., since 1867; the Harlem Asylum for Inebriates'/Baltimore'
Md., which was opened in 1871; and the Franklin Reformatory Home  for  Inebriates  in
Philadelphia, Pa., opened in 1872.  California enacted the requisite laws in  1870 and
Connecticut  in 1874.  It is believed that Texas and Kentucky have  legislated on the
subject.  For the facts stated I am indebted to Dr. Albert Day, Sup't of the YVashinotonian
Home, Boston;  to Dr. D. H.  Dodge, Sup't of  the Binghamton  Asylum- and°to the
Annual Reports  (since 1871) of the "American Association for the Cure of Inebriates "
  4 In connection with intemperance, it deserves  record  that only  within the present
century have Anglo-American Judges inclined to admit drunkenness in extenuation  of
crime,  depriving  it of premeditation.   (See B. 329, p. 567.)
 5 B. 349, I. p. 759.  An  eminent lawyer asserts that this still occurs in some of the States
notwithstanding  the State Lunatic Asylums.                                     ' 
ADDRESS  ON MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.            21
 any judge of the court before which he  is to be tried, when a plea of
 insanity is made in  court, or he  is notified  that it  will be  made, may
 .   .  .  order such person into the care of the superintendent of the in-
 sane hospital, to be detained and observed by him till the further order
 of the eourt^ that the truth  or falsity of  the plea  maybe ascertained."
 New York, in 1874,  enacted laws which provide for "an investigation
 of the sanity or insanity of the accused, as a separate  and independent
 proceeding from the  trial of the indictment," and, after such preliminary
 investigation,"  leave the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused
 to be tried by itself.*'1  Thus have  Maine and  New York lessened  the
 frequent difficulty of choosing between "inhumanity to disease, and in-
 dulgence to crime."
   Five  States2 have  aided  the solution of this  problem  by progress in
 another direction.  For, by the abolition of capital punishment, the cruel
 alternative between the asylum and the gallows has been obviated, and
 no shocking injustice can be perpetrated by confining in  a penitentiary,
 rather than in an  asylum, him proved  dangerous to  society.  It was  a
 great advance in civilization when the victor ceased to  slaughter, and by
 enslaving utilized the lives of the vanquished.  Will it not be proof of
 like progress when society has fully learned  how best to utilize the lives
 of all its criminals?3
   Notwithstanding that there is still great lack of uniformity in the de-
 cisions of our courts as to what are the proper tests of insanity, there has
 been decided progress.   Until Pinel's day (1792), insanity had never been
 properly studied, hence physicians werelittle less ignorant and superstitious
 in regard to it than the public.  In the absence  of  medical knowledge,
 what could  the  law do other than establish tests for itself?  Until 1800,
 the savage test of Anglo-American criminal law was that he alone should
 be adjudged insane, who  was " totally deprived of his understanding
 and memory, and did not  know what he was doing  any more than an
 infant, than a brute,  or wild  beast."  In 1800, it was, for the first  time,
 mercifully decided that those whose crimes were due to an " insane de-
 lusion," should not be hung, even though not yet wild beasts.4  In 1812,
 it was decided that the correct  test was  whether  the criminal alleged
 insane had, as to matters generally, " the power of  distinguishing right
 from wrong;" and since 1843, in England, and to a large extent in this
 country, the judges' test has  been, whether such  criminal had, as to his
 special  crime and at the moment it was committed, " a  sufficient degree
 of reason to  know that he was doing an act which was wrong."
   But, since 1800, alienists have taught, in constantly increasing number,
 that a capacity to distinguish right from wrong is an  inadequate test,

  1 B. 364.
  2 Michigan in 1846; Rhode Tsland in 1852; Wisconsin in 1853;  Iowa  in 1872;  and
 Maine in 1876.   Blackstone, referring in 1769 to England's " dreadful list of 160 capital
 offences," hoped for  " such a gradual scale of punishment to be affixed to all  gradations of
 guilt, as may  in time supersede  the necessity of capital punishment, except for  very
 atrocious crimes." (Book IV. p. 371.) In the various States, other than the above, capital
 punishment is now inflicted for only from three to eight " very atrocious crimes."
  3 My brief allusions to the "abolition of capital punishment" and to "moral mania,"
 intimate convictions  which may cause misapprehension.   For until our present defects in
 the administration of justice, in the constitution of our juries, and in  the means needed to
fully protect society,  be remedied, I  shall believe that our courts have gone generally as far
as, and often much further than, the best interests of society require.
  4  In 1800, Lord Erskine initiated the first enlightened legal discussion of insanity; and
the Attorney-General of England then  declared that the " wild beast theory " of Lord
Hale had never been contradicted, but had always been adopted. 
22
CHAILLE,
and that, not infrequently, while the reason is apparently able to make
this distinction, the will may be so enfeebled, and the mora « so perverted
by disease, as to deprive the sufferer of  that « vicious will  necessary to
constitute  a crime.   The  first Anglo-American judges to adopt these
lessons of  medical  science, were Shaw, of Massachusetts, in  l»4d,  ana
Edmonds, of New York, in 1845.   They ruled that insanity was proved
if the homicide " bad no power of control ;" " if  his moral or intellectual
powers were so deficient that he had not sufficient will;  and   it  he did
the act from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse.'1   The learned
Edmonds took occasion to observe that " the law in  its slow and^ cau-
tious progress still lags far behind  the advance of true knowledge,  and
the history of the progress of Legal  Medicine proves  the truth of  this
observation as to  every medico-legal topic.   How can this be  otherwise
while, as  another legal authority asserts, our "legislatures  are  much
better versed in the miserable tactics of party, than in the  .  .  .  laws
of physiology," and while  judges, as well as legislators, mindful, as they
should be of precedent, that friend  to uniformity and stability of the law,
do, in their superstitious reverence, often forget,  not only that " thelaw
of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of
course superior in obligation to any other,"2 but  also that science  is  con-
stantly engaged in revising and adding to our knowledge of  this supreme
law, thus increasing man's power to " think the  thoughts of God!"
  Improving on  Shaw and Edmonds, Judges  Bell, Perley, Ladd, and
Doe,  of the  Supreme Court  of  New  Hampshire,  have, since 1864,
announced the only principles worthy of both legal and medical science,3
and have thereby merited  the profound  gratitude of the medical profes-
sion,  and  lasting  commemoration in  the annals of Anglo-American
Medical Jurisprudence.  None announced the true principles of the law
more clearly than Judge Doe, who (in 1869) charged that  " at present,
precedents require the'jury to be  instructed by  experts in  new medical
theories, and by judges in  old medical theories ;" and that,  in this., " the
legal profession were invading the province of medicine, and attempting
to install old exploded medical theories in the place of facts established
in the progress of scientific knowledge."   But, he  adds, " that cannot
be a fact in law which is not a fact in science ; that cannot be health in
law which is disease in fact; and it  is unfortunate  that courts should
maintain a contest with science and  the laws of nature upon  a question
of fact, which is within the province of  science,  and outside the domain
of the law."  " The legal principle, however much it may formerly have
been obscured by pathological darkness and confusion, is, that a product
of mental  disease is not a  contract, a will, or a  crime.   It  is often diffi-
cult to ascertain whether an individual has a mental disease, and whether
an  act was the product of that disease,  but these difficulties arise from
the  nature of the facts to be investigated, and  not from the law ;  they
are practical difficulties to  be solved by the jury, and not legal difficulties

  1 In the record of progress in the legal tests  of insanity, it deserves  notice that Drs.
Gooch and  Combe, about 1830  (B. 226), "first  announced the  great principle  that the
mind of one  supposed insane should be compared with his own mind when in  its natural,
habitual state," and not with some ideal average mind of health. This principle has been
extended by the laws of New York to homicide in self-defence, etc., modifying the inter-
pretation of "apparency of danger,"  "cooling  time," "intent,"  and  "premeditation"
(See Homicide ; by F. Wharton, 2d Ed., 1875.)
  2 Blackstone, I. p. 41.
  3 State v. Wier, State v. Pike, State v. Jones, Boardman  v. Woodman, 1864, 1869, 1870. 
              ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.            23

 for the court."  " If the tests of insanity are matters of law, the practice
 of allowing experts to testify what they are, should be discontinued; if
 they are matters of fact, the judge  should no longer testify without being
 sworn as a witness, and  showing  himself qualified to  testify as an ex-
 pert."   In fine, all symptoms and all tests of mental  disease are purely
 matters of fact to be determined by the jury from the evidence of com-
 petent "witnesses ; and since " legal precedent was one way, legal principle
 the other," precedent should be'abandoned, and principle  be followed.
   Side by side with the enlightened views of these American judges, will
 be recorded, for the  instruction of astonished posterity, that as  late  as
 1862  the Lord Chancellor  of England did, in  referring  to insanity,
 declare in the House of Lords that " the introduction of medical opinions
 and medical theories into this subject  has proceeded upon the vicious
 principle of considering insanity as a disease," and that  he condemned
 " the evil habit which had grown  up of assuming that it was a physical
 disease" I1  Can this fail  to revive the recollection that ninety-three years
 anterior  to  this Lord  Chancellor, Blackstone, an abler lawyer than he,
 thus fulminated (1769): "to  deny the  possibility, nay, actual existence
 of witchcraft and sorcery is at once to flatly contradict the revealed word
 of God,"  .   .  . "and  the thing itself is a truth to which  every nation
 in the world hath in its turn  borne testimony"?2  This Lord Chancellor
 affords, however, a  psj'chological lessou much needed even now ;  for his
 opinions illustrate  what profound furrows  the  ancestral  bigotry and
 superstition of centuries can plough  into even the best endowed brains
 of the descendants—as  we all are—of uneducated barbarians.3
   One more hopeful example must close my record of  our progress.  In
 1867, Medicine and Law, uniting for the first time in  history for such a
 purpose,  founded "The Medico-Legal  Society  of  New York;"  now
 numbering among its members more than four hundred physicians and
 lawyers of influence and distinction, its brief life has been adorned with
 good deeds.   It has established a  medico-legal library, which promises
 to become, if it is not already, the best  in existence ; it is about to issue
 a second volume of valuable  essays, the first  having been published  in
 1874 ; it has, by critical  vigilance,  elevated  the standard  of medical
 experts, and  in one noted conviction its criticisms instigated a  second
 trial with acquittal; wisely imitating its junior, "La  Socie'te  de Mede-
 cine Ldgale de France,"4 in  its efforts to furnish a substitute for the
 negligence of the State,  it has (May, 1876)  appointed three  medical and
 three legal experts as a permanent commission to investigate any medico-
 legal issue referred to it; it  has  called attention to the condition and
 criminal responsibility of uneducated mutes, and to the  laws necessary
 for their protection; and it has influenced the  legislation of New York
 as to abortion, as to  robbery under  the influence of chloroform, and  as
 to the trial  and punishment of all homicides, whether sane or insane.
 Thus instructing the public, and inaugurating reforms, it  seems destined

  1 Hansard. CLXV. 1297.                             2 Blackstone, IV. p. 60.
  3 It deserves record, in connection with  the progress  of judicial decisions, that, at the
 present day, Anglo-American  law does not regard the  killing of an  infant prior to  its
 complete expulsion from  the vagina {i. e. to its being " fully born alive") as infanticide.
 An  English Judge recently charged a jury that, "if of opinion that the prisoner had
strangled her child before wholly born, she must  be acquitted of murder."  (See B. 292,
 I. p. 542 ; and B. 358, II. pp.  359-61.)  Ellwell (B. 290, p. 555) says,  " Infanticide may
be committed upon an unborn live child."
  4 Organized February, 1868, and formally recognized by a decree of the  French govern-
ment, January, 1874. 
24
CHAILLE,
to render New York the pioneer of all the States in medico-legal progress;
and finally, in promoting scientific intercourse and discussion  between
the two professions, it has forcibly taught that the invidious bigotry of
the one is as misplaced as that of the other, and that the common weal
loudly demands the united efforts of the best minds of both.1
   What labor so god-like as the dispensation of justice; what efforts in
its behalf  can  be more important than those designed to enable  the  law
to reap promptly the full benefits of science—of that knowledge which,
having done  so  much  for  human  development, now proffers unappre-
ciated boons, and by incessant progress assures mankind a higher destiny?
Shall  medicine and law, standingaloof, not only endure but even blindly
honor ancestral evils ?  Is it needful in 1876 to remind two learned profes-
sions  that the author of  our imperishable Declaration of 1776 declared :
" The Gothic idea that we are to look backwards instead of forwards for
the improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our
ancestors for what is most perfect in  government, in religion, and learning,
is worthy of those bigots in  religion and government by whom it has
been  recommended, and whose purposes it would answer.  But it is not
an idea which this country  will endure"?

  This historical sketch requires for its  completion a record  of  the
measures  proposed to  correct our  medico-legal evils, which, often  de-
nounced since 1823 by  the medical profession, continue unappreciated
by the people.  To test the  value of these proposed measures  it  is indis-
pensable to understand the following premises, accepted by  the highest
medical and legal authorities.
  While one  would suffice  to maim, our law adopts two methods to
murder, Medical Jurisprudence; both so result that it is a vulgar mockery
of medical knowledge  and  of justice to term such medical evidence as
is attained, " the  best  attainable."   In one  case, the law neglects to
secure competent  experts to testify, as " ordinary witnesses,"  to facts
obtained by them from inquests and all medico-legal examinations.   In
the other case, the  law fails to provide such experts to testify, as " skilled
witnesses," not to facts they have personally witnessed in the case, but
to their "opinions," as  to  what  conclusions are deducible from  the
medical facts sworn to by ordinary witnesses; for this marked difference
between the  ordinary  and  the  skilled witness,  Anglo-American  law
deplorably fails to make any provision, while German and French  law
wisely recognize that the skilled witness is not an ordinary witness, but
an  arbitrator.  Further, it  is manifest  that  the   experts thus  needed,
for two distinct purposes,can never  be supplied except by the State; that
the competency of  these  experts can  never be secured except by special
and practical instruction; that the chief instruction must be given by
medical men;  and that the instructors alone are competent to attest the
competency of their pupils.
  These premises cannot be refuted,  and force the general conclusions that
no measures could  fully correct our evils except such as, in the  first place,
would  reform altogether the office of coroner, and supply  competent
experts for its duties,  and, in the second  place, would  provide a leo-al
status for skilled witnesses, and secure their  skill; and that these two
indispensable  ends can never  be  gained except  through an organized
system of  medicolegal officials,  specially trained as medical  experts  and
1 B. 356, 363, 364, 380, 387. 
ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.
25
attested as competent by competent judges.  Alas!  these irrefutable conclu-
sions are most discouraging, for  no American can fail to appreciate how
difficult and distant is their realization.  But when the remedies are not
forthwith  at  hand to cure a disease, should we cease its study, and our
efforts both to discover and to obtain all the remedies necessary ?  A full
understanding of the indispensable  remedies, will at least enable us to
test the value of the seven which have been proposed.   Their introduc-
tion requires two comments: first, there is no one of them which would
not  prove decidedly  beneficial, since, fortunately in this  regard, there is
no change of our law which could possibly aggravate our present evils;
and second, the  first four  to be mentioned  apply to only one  of our
two great  evils.
  One proposal  is that special juries be provided  for special  cases,1 and
another  is that a medical assessor be appointed to advise and assist the
courts;2  either  would provide better judges  of medical  testimony, but
neither makes  any  attempt to supply " the  best attainable evidence."
A  third  measure proposes a commission  of experts chosen  either  by
mutual consent,3 or one by each  party and a third by the judge.4   Thi3
great improvement  could  probably be adopted  more readily than  any
other measure suggested ;  but none  of those thus authorized to appoint
have the knowledge  necessary to enable them to select competent experts,
and therefore this measure would certainly not secure "the best  attain-
able evidence."   A fourth proposal  is the adoption  of the French  law
which empowers the judge to appoint a medical commission.5  French
authorities, while urging the adoption of the German system, denounce
their own with even contemptuous bitterness,6 asserting that their judges
rarely appoint competent experts, but generally their own family-physi-
cians and practitioners  of merely  popular  repute.7  A fifth  proposal,
which would require all graduates in medieine to be competent experts,
as well as  practitioners,8 has long been, and  is daily becoming so much
more impracticable,  as to deserve no  notice except as illustrating how
inadequately is  estimated the extent and character of the special know-
ledge necessary  to a  medico-legist.
  Prof. Gross9 urged, in  1868, that the Judges of the Supreme Court of
each State should appoint  a commissioner  in every judicial district, to
elicit and  estimate medical evidence; and  that he should be provided
with two or more medical experts as assistants, to make all medico-legal
examinations.  This  is the only measure, thus  far considered, which aims
a practical  blow at both our evils.   But, if French experience be appli-
cable to us, then judges of law are not good judges of experts, and should
not be authorized to  appoint them, except from those whose competency
has been attested by competent judges of experts; and, if German experi-
ence be applicable to us, then a medical commissioner, long ago tried

  1 J. Fitz Stephen's " Criminal Law of England, London, 1863 ;" and Dr. I. Kay (B. 234).
  2 A. S. Taylor and mauy others.                    3  Beck (B. 209) and others.
  4 Ordronaux (B.  318). etc.                         5  Urged by many.
  6 See Fodere, Orfila, Devergie (B. 114, 121, 124); and especially the Preface to \ ol. I.
4th ed. of Orfila.  Some at least of the French  courts have made the improvement of ap-
pointing a permanent commission of experts for all medico-legal cases, instead of a special
commission for each case.
  7 If the  French system be satisfactory, if the State provide, as it should, " the best at-
tainable evidence,"  then why should there be in Paris, as in New York City, an unofficial
and gratuitous commission of volunteer experts ?
  8 Chitty (B. 231), and very many others.
  9 President's Address, Trans. Am. Med. Assoc, 1868. 
26
CHAILLE,
and abandoned in Germany,1 is superfluous, provided  the law supplies
a proper system and competent experts to present to the courts " the best
attainable evidence."
   Finally, others advocate some such modification, as may be practicable
under our form of government, of that German system which, the growth
of  two centuries of experience, alone gives satisfaction  at  home, and at
the same time commands the admiration of the  medico-legists of  every
civilized  nation.2   The Prussian system has  four  grades of medico-legal
officials.  (1)  To a specially educated  official expert  is  submitted  every
medico-legal case.3  His examinations, made  in  presence  of the judge
(in some cases), and of medical  men and students, insure by  their publi-
city thoroughness and impartiality, and are the foundation of Germany's
medico-legal clinics which provide the practical instruction  indispensable
to the education of competent experts.   All the facts and proofs derived
from the examination, and essential to a conclusion, are made parts of a
written  report,  and these reports, with  subsequent  action thereon, are
preserved in official  archives, and have been  the source  of Germany's
fruitful medico-legal literature.  (2) If prosecution or defence be dissatis-
fied, the  expert's  report, with  all  proofs preserved,  is  forwarded to a
Medical Court of Appeal, which, consisting of from four to  six members,
exists in each province.  (3) If this second decision prove unsatisfactory,
there  is a final appeal to a Scientific Deputation, composed of experts  of
national reputation.3   (4) Finally, one of  the  highest officers of the  gov-
ernment, the Minister of Medical Affairs, presides over an  educational and
a sanitary, as well as over  this medico-legal organization, and in fact
rules a department of State Medicine.

  Has State Medicine become necessary to  a nation's progress  in civili-
zation?   Can  services essential  to the welfare of a people be rendered by
other than medical officers?   Who will deny that  no well-governed State
can dispense with  medical instructors;  with physicians in  charge of its
hospitals  and  asylums;  with medicolegal experts; with  inspectors to
watch over the execution of proper lawTs for prohibiting quackery and
the sale of quack, foeticidal, poisonous, and adulterated drugs  and'food,
and also to certify to every death with its cause, after personal examina-
tion f with  registrars of vital  statistics to record  not  only marriages,

  1  See Preface to the French edition of Casper (B. 88).
  2 Sheldon Amos, Esq., Prof, of Jurisprudence, University College, London (see "Science
of the Law," New York, 1874), in discussing the  expert probletn, says : "Almost all the
solutions point  to the public organization of bodies of skilled witnesses in each of the im-
portant departments in which they are constantly demanded, and to a special preference
being given to their evidence in the administration of justice."   Francis  Wharton, Esq.,
(B. 264, II. p. 1120) urges that the German system is the only one worth imitating-   In
these views 1 thoroughly concur, notwithstanding the serious objections urged by such high
authorities as J. Fitz Stephen, Esq., and I. Ray, \[.D.
  3 There are circumstances, says Casper, where any doctor may be called on, as an expert,
in Prussia.                                                             r
  4 Formerly in Prussia (probably still in parts of Germany) the  collegiate medical facul-
ties were appealed to, whenever the primary reports of the official  experts were not satis-
factory to both  litigants.
  [ The English  system of determining and certifying to death and its cause is certainly
not inferior to any such system (or lack of system) existing in  the United States- and vet
so inefficient is  this superior system that Prof. A. S. Taylor reports that a man registered
his own death, and then based a fraudulent claim on the certificate of his death and on the
fact of his burial,  which he himself had  supervised ; and he further asserts that "all that is
requisite for future murderers by poison to do, is to use small doses, combine  the use  of
various drugs, and subpoena the proper medical witnesses for  the defence."  (See B 3^8
I. pp. 167-8 and 196.)                                              v   °- d08' 
ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.           27
births, and deaths, but  also prevailing diseases with their causes;  and,
finally, with sanitary officers to guard the public  health by vaccination,
quarantine,  seclusion, disinfection, and all  known means?
  While such services to the State would now confer incalculable benefits,
these are  not  a tithe of those  which the progress  of medical  science
assures the future.   But a patchwork of ill-digested laws cannot secure
these benefits, nor mere practitioners of medicine render  these services.
To this end  a well-organized system of State Medicine, administered by
specially  educated medical  men, is  indispensable;  and  however dis-
couraging the  difficulties, educational, legal, and  political, in  our path,
these must  be  eventually overcome, or our country prove  a laggard  in
the triumphant march which civilization,  led by the hand  of science, is
now treading.  One of these difficulties, an increase of officials, dangerous
to a republic, repugnant to the people, is more serious in appearance than
in reality ;  for our present posts for coroners, and for sanitary  and other
medical officers, would suffice for, at least, the initiation of an  organized
system of State Medicine.   Far more serious difficulties are presented by
those causes which now so often fill  these posts with  unqualified men,
by the continual elections and " rotations  in office," through which the
people, with suicidal folly, eliminate from public service responsible and
efficient servants. If the demoralizing political principle, " to the victors
belong the spoils," is to continue its mastery over the virtue and intelli-
gence of a great people, then all hope of efficiency in any system  of State
Medicine, as well as in every public service which requires special  skill
and experience, must be abandoned.   But, if the cardinal  maxim of our
political faith  be well founded, if it be true that a  republican govern-
ment is better adapted than any other to secure the greatest good to the
greatest  number, then,  though public  enlightenment  develop slowly,
the day must come at last when all impediments will be overthrown, and
an efficient  system of  State Medicine be  organized  by our laws.  This
progress,  as all others, must pass through  stages of  evolution,  and expe-
diency force the  acceptance, as  now, of mere make-shifts ; but this con-
viction should not deter the attempt to measure the  full  extent of our
defects and  of our needs, nor prevent us, while conscious that we are but
scratching the surface of great evils, from striving to direct our efforts
to their very root.

  Honored  Members of this International Medical Congress:  Laboring on
the  task  now completed,  professional instinct prompted  as sedulous  a
search for the symptoms of disease which skill might alleviate, as for the
evidences of health  which need no aid ;  for the  instruction of  my suc-
cessor of  1976  (the one man who, should  there be  no other, will study
this Address), I have deemed  it as needful to record  that which has
been left  undone, as that which has  been  done;  and, while mindful  of
gratitude's debt  to the honored living and illustrious dead, I have en-
deavored  to keep in mind  that the chief object  of history is to  teach
wherein and why we have failed, that we may do better in future.
  Actuated by these motives, 1 have thought no  time more appropriate
to note our  failures than this Centennial Year, which gathers from far
beyond our own vast  domain, conclusive evidences of  the might and
fame of this nation.   To its colossal power, how harmless  is the  voice of
malice ; to its dignity, how offensive should be the voice  of flattery ;  to
its honor, how unwelcome aught save the voice of truth !   What higher
evidence of true  greatness, what better  pledge of continued prosperity, 
28
CHAILLE,
can this people give, than by proofs that now, in the day of its supreme
vigor and renown,  it  is intent upon its own shortcomings ;   and that,
beneath a flimsy veil of national vanity,  there sturdily stands  " the pith
o' sense, and pride o' worth"!  If I have dwelt unduly on my country's
faults, it has not been from lack either of devotion to its form  of govern-
ment, or of just pride in its many  noble deeds in humanity's behalt;  but
that I would have our Republic foremost  in every good work, its pro-
gress endless, and its glory deathless.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX.
                      Explanations and Abbreviations.

  To economize space, the titles and places of publication of the general treatises in foreign
languages have been omitted, except in a few instances of those of great note.  For the
same purpose, each author has been numbered, and is referred to by number in the notes to
the Address, and in the final indices to this bibliographical appendix.  Dates separated by
a hyphen, e.g. 1621-58, indicate that  the publication of the book  in different parts was
begun in 1621, and completed in 1658; dates separated by a comma, e.g. 1598, 1602, 1671,
indicate the dates of the publication of different editions ; and dates repeated, or closely
approximating, indicate the publication of different editions in different places.

  This contribution to the bibliography of American Medical Jurisprudence is
preceded by a bibliographical  record  of the  medico-legal  literature of  Italy,
Germany, France, and Great Britain ; and the whole has been arranged chrono-
logically to illustrate the origin and progress of medico-legal science.
  Wildberg's "Bibliotheca Medicinse Forensis, 1819," records  2980 treatises,
essays, etc., published from the origin of medico-legal literature (about A. D.
1600) to 1818. Orfila's Medecine Legale, 4th ed., furnishes a list of 168 treatises
(to  1848), on poisons generally; of these 100 were German, 33 French, and 19
English.  An English  authority, the New Sydenham Society's "Year Books"
for  1859 and 1860, reports the chief literary contributions of all nations to
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology during the two  years 1858  and  1859;
the  total number was 498, viz., 250 for Legal Medicine and 248 for Toxicology:
and of the former, Germany contributed 201, and of the latter, 118. These, with
other facts, indicate that Germany continues to contribute more to medico-legal
literature than all other  nations combined; and that a complete bibliography
of the Medical Jurisprudence of all languages must report many thousands of
books, essays, and articles.  Hence the bibliographical sketch of foreign litera-
ture attempts no more than the record  of treatises and manuals on the general
subject; preceding these with a list of the books on special subjects which were
published prior to the first general treatise; and following these with a reference
to a few authorities of great repute on special subjects.  It deserves note that
in every language the number of publications on special subjects, after the issue
of the first  general treatise, has  been very great,  and proportionate  to the
number of  general treatises.
  The contribution to the bibliography of American Medical Jurisprudence
attempts to  report  all the treatises, books, essays,  and pamphlets, by native
and foreign authors, published in the United States; the republication of foreign
works being indicated by a f.   Only  a few articles from Journals are cited,
and these for a special purpose.   The  bibliography of Medical Jurisprudence,
as represented by "articles in journals, transactions, and  collections," giving
"the results of the examination of about 5000 volumes of  such publications »
will  constitute a part of the " Catalogue  of  the National Medical Librarv'"
now in course of preparation  by Dr. John S. Billings, Asst. Surgeon USA
and  Librarian; and  will probably be  published  in  1877.   Further the New 
ADDRESS ON MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.
29
York Medico-Legal  Society is preparing for  publication an  extensive bibli-
ography of  Medical  Jurisprudence.  These  two sources will no doubt supply
all defects and omissions in this contribution.
  For articles and reports of merit, the reader is  referred especially to the
American Jurist and Law Magazine, Boston, 1829 to 1843 ;  American Journal
of Insanity, Utica, N. Y., since 1844 ; Reports of the Association of Medical
Superintendents of  Hospitals for  the Insane  in  North America, since 1844;
Transactions of  the  Medical Society of  the State of New York, prior to 1845 ;
Transactions of the American Medical  Association,  since 1848 ; Alban}' Law
Journal, since 1870 ;  Annual Reports of the American Association for the Cure
of Inebriates, since 1871; the Psychological and  Medico-Legal Journal, N.Y.,
and the Series of Papers by the X. Y. Medico-Legal Society, both since 1874.
                                  Italy.

  General  Treatises.--1.  Fidelis, Fortunatus, De Relationibus Medicorum,
1598, 1602, 1671.  2. Zacchias, Paulus, Questiones Medico-legales, &c, Books
I. to  X., 1621-58, 1651, 1655-61, 1657, 1666, 1688, 1674-1701; Nuremberg, 3
vs. 1720 ; Yenise, 1737.  3. Tortosa, "best book to its date," 2 vs. 1802, 1809.
4.  Sidoti, 1806.   5.  Barzelotti,  "very excellent," 2 vs. 1818, 1823-4, 1839.
6.  Martini, 3  vs. 1825.    7. Taurini,  4 vs. 1832, 1841-4.   8.  Speranza, 1833.
9.  Grotanelli, 1834.   10. Cledillot, 1836.   11. Riscica, 1836.   12. Gianelli,
1836.   13. Perrone, 2d ed. 1840.  14. Presutti, 1841-4.   15. Treschi, 3 vs.
1846.  16. Lazzaretti, 1859.  17. Gandolfi, 1854, 1863.
  Special Treatises.—18.  Morgagni,  De Sedibus et Causis Morborum, 1761.
19. Beccaria, Scriptura Medico-Legalis, 1764 ;  and " Crimes and Punishments;"
republished  in Italian,  1821;  French,  1821;  English,  5th ed.  1804; Phila-
delphia, 1778 and 1793.
                                Germany.

  Earliest Treatises on Special Subjects.—20.  Condronchus, Methodus Testifi-
candi, 1597.  21. Libavius, De Cruentatione Cadaverum, 1599.  22. Ammann,
Irenicum, &c, 1619, and Medicina Critica, 1677.  23. Behrens, Medicus Legalis,
1696.  24. Wolf, Cogitat. Med.-Leg. 1697.  25. Yalentini, Pandectse Med.-Leg.
1701, and Novella? Med.-Leg. 1718.   26.  Fischer, Consilia Medic, &c, 1703-6,
and  Responsa Pract. et Forens. Select. 1719.   27. Bohn,  De Officio Medici,
1704, and De Renunciatione Yulnerum, 1689, 1710 (both of note).  28. Zittman,
Medicina Forensis, 1706.
  General Treatises.—2d. Valentini, Corpus Juris. Med.-Leg. ("best book to
its date"), 2 vs. 1722.  30. Teichmeyer, Institutiones  Med.-Leg.,  <fcc. ('b long
the Manual of Students"), 1722,  1731, 1740,1762, 1769.   31. Albertus, Systema
Jurisp. Medic*, &c. (" very excellent"),  1725, 1733-47, 1756.   32. Goelicke,
1723.  33. Loew, 1725.  34. Storck, 1730.  35. Tropanneger, 1733.  36. Eschen-
bach  1746, 1 775.  37. Hebenstreit, Anthropologia Forensis, &c. (" much valued
by lawyers"), 1751.   38. Furstenau, 1752. 39.  Boerner, J756.  40. Bernhold,
1760.   41.  Ludwig, 1765, 1774.   42. Faselius, Elementa Medicinse Forensis,
1767* 1775 ("foundation"  of Farr's  Elements of Med. Jurisp., 1788, the first
treatise in the English language). 43. Braendel  1768,1789   44  Kannegiesser,
1768  177^ 1777, 1778.  45. Baumer, 1778. 46. Sikora, 1780, 1792.  4,.Plenck,
Elementa" Med.  et Chir. Forensis,  1781, 1786,  1802 (foundation  of Male's
Epitome  of Forensic  Medicine, London, 1816).   48. Haller   1782-4    4 j.
Sc-lileeel,  Collect. Opusc.  Select, ad Med. For.  Speck, 6 vs. 1785-90 ("best
book  to its date").   49.  Loder, 1793.   50. Metzger,  System, der gerichtl.
AiZne"("best book to its date" , 1793,  1794, 1798, 1803, 1814  1820 and two
French editions: Autun, 1812; Paris,  1813.   51.  John, 1795.   52.  Fahner,
       4 
30
CHAILLE,
3 vs. 1795-1800  53. Muller, 4 vs. 1796-1802.   54. Erhard, 1800.  55. Schraud,
1802.   56. Schmidtmuller, 1S(I4.   57. Masius, 1810, LSI 2,  1S21-3.  58. Bene,
1811.   59.  Wildberg, 1812, 1X24.   60. Henke,  Lehrb. der gerichtl.  Med., 1812,
and Bergmann's 13th ed., 1859.   61. Niemann,  2 vs. LS13    62. Bernt, 1813,
and 5th ed. 1846.    63. Dora,  1813.   64. Klose, 1814.   65.  Sprengel, 1816.
66. Mende, Handb. der gerichtl. Med. ("a remarkable  book"), 6 vs. 1819-32.
67. Meckel. 1821.  68. Plainer, 1824.  69. Niemann, 3 vs. 1x27-9.  70. Wagner,
1833-40.  71.  Sporer, 1837.   72,  Siebenhaar, 2 vs.  183s.  73. Freidreich, 2 vs.
1839,  1843, 1X48, 1855.   74. Rolff, 1840.  75. Xicolai, 1841.  76. Xey, 1845.
77. Bercrmann, 1846.  78. Brach, 184(5, 1850.   79. Siebold,  1847.  80. Meckel,
1848-53^   81. Schurmaycr, Lehrbuch der gerichtl.  Med., 1848, 4th ed., 1874.
82. Quentner, 1851.   83.  Giintner. 1851.  84. Krahmer, Handb. der gerichtl.
Med., 1851, 1857;  and 85. Handb. der Staatsarzneik.,  1874.   86.  Bocker, 2d
ed., 1857.   87. Hauska,  1857-69.   88. Casper,  Handb. der gerichtl.  Med., 1857,
1858 ; 3d was the first complete ed., 1860, 1864; Liman's 5th ed., 1871 ; French
ed., 2  vs. 1XC2; English ed., 4 vs. 1861-5; and translated  into several other
languages.   89. Hofman, 1860.   90. Pichler, 1861, 1867.  91. Lion. 1861, 1867.
92. Schauenstein,  1867.   93. Biichner,  1867;  2d ed.,  1872.   94.  Kraus  und
Pichler, Encye. Worterbuch d. Staatsarzneik., 2 vs. 1873.
  N. B.—Five of  the above sixty-five  German  general treatises have been
published since 1870, viz.: Casper (Liman's 5th ed.), 1871; Biichner, 2d  ed.,
1872; Kraus & Pichler, 1873; Krahmer, 1874; Schurmayer, 4th ed., 1874.
   Special  Treatises. — Among the most distinguished  German   authors on
special subjects have been: 95. Roose, Grand. Med.-gericht Yorles., 1798, 1800,
1802;  translated into French  by Marc, Manuel d'Autops. Cadav. Med.-Leg.,
Paris,  8vo. 1808.  96.  Hotfl.aue'r, 1802,1807,1809; translated into  French,
MeU  Leg.  relative aux  Abends,  &c, Paris,  1827.   97. Heinroth,  1812, 1825.
98. Mittermaier, 1856, 1858,  1X65.   99.  Krafft-Ebing,  1868, 1872,  1875.   All
of these in  reference to the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity or Medicolegal
Psychology.
                                France

  Earliest Treatises  on  Special  Subjects. —100.  Pare',  Atnbroise,  Medical
Reports, Monstrous Births, Feigned Diseases, 1575, 1582, and G^uvres Com-
pletes, Paris. 3 vs. 1840.   101. Pineau, Integ. et Corrup. Virgin., 1598.    102.
Riolan, Les Monstres, 1605.   103. Tagereau, L'Impuissance, 1611.  104. Duval,
L'Hermaphrodisme, 1612.  105.  Sebitz, La Virginite" et L'Hymen, 1630, 1638.
106. Gendri, Moyens  de bien rapporter a justice, 1650.  107. Blegni, La Doct.
des Rapports  de Chirurgie, 1684.   108. Devaux, L'Art de faire des Rapports
en Chirurgie, 1693, 1701, 1730, 1746.  109.  Bruhier, L'Incertitude des Signes
de la Mort, &c. (180 cases of living, treated as if dead),  1742.  110.  Yerdier,
La  Jurisp. de la Med.,  &c, 1752.    111. Prevost, Principes  de  Jurisp.,  &c,
Me'd.-Leg., 1763.  112. Louis, A. Signes de la Mort, &c; Exps. sur les Noye's;
Recueil d'Observations, &c; Causes Celebres (first 43 vols.), 1752-88.   113.
Chaussier, Obs. Chirur.-Legales, &c, 1790,  1824, 1X38.
  N. B.—The most noted of these  were Pare, Gendri, Blegni, Devaux, Louis,
and Chaussier.
  General Treatises.—114. Fodere', Traits  de Med. Leg.  et d'Hyo-. Pub.  3 vs
1796 ;  2d ed.,  6 vs. 1813.  115. Mahon, 1801,  1807, 1811.   116. Belloc,'l801,
1811, 1819.   117. Yigne',  1805.  118. Bertrand, 1817.  119. Lecieux, &c, 1805.
120. Biessy,  1821.   121. Orfila, Lecons de Me'decine Legale, 3 vs. 1821-5, 1828
1839;  4th ed., 1x48.   122. Briand, Manuel de Me'decine LCgale, 1821, 18^8-
Briand et Bresson, 3d ed.,  1830;  Briand et Chaude',  1846,1852,1858 186l'
1869;  Paris, 9th ed., pp. 1102, 8vo. fort., 1874.   123.  Sedillot, 183o' 1833
124. Trinquier, 1836-8.   124«.  Devergie, Medecine Legale, 3 vs. 1837' 1840*
1852.  125.  Bayard, 1844.   126. Legrand du  Saulle, Ortolan, et Naquez 187o' 
              ADDRESS  ON MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.           31

127.  Legrand  du Saulle, Traite de Medecine Legale et de Jurisp. Med., Paris,
pp. 1268, 1874.  128. Bergeron, 1876.
  Special  Treatises. — Among the  most distinguished  French  authors on
special subjects  may be mentioned :  129. Pinel^Ph., 1800, 1805, 1809.   130.
Georget, 1820, 1826, 1828.    131. Esquirol, 1832,  1838.    132. Marc, 1840.
133.  Brierre  de Boismont,  1827-1860.   (All on  Medico-Legal Psychology.)
134.  Capuron, Obstetrical  Medical  Jurisprudence,  1821.   " 135.  Trehueliet,
Jurisp.  de la  Medecine, &c, 1834.    136.  Poilroux,  Manuel de Me'd.-Le'g.
Criminelle, 1834, 1837.  137. Tardieu, A., numerous experimental'and literary
contributions,  entitling him to the first rank among the medicodegists of the
present  time, 1845  to 1876.
                           Great Britain, etc.

  Earliest Treatises on Special Subjects.—138. Percival,  Thos., Essays Med.
and  Exp., &c, 1778-90.   139.  Win. Hunter, Uncertainty of Signs of  Murder
in Bastard  Children, 1783.  140.  Goodwyn, Submersion, Strangulation, &c,
1788.   141. Crichton, Mental  Derangements, 1798.   142. Haslam, Insanity,
and  Medical Jurisp.  of Insanity,  1798,  1809, 1817, 1819.   143.  Johnstone,
Madness, Med. Jurisp. of, 1800.   144. Perfect, Insanity,  2d ed.,  1801.   145.
Collinson, Lunacy, Law of Idiots, Lunatics, &c, 1812.   146. Johnson, C, Signs
of Murder in New-Bom Children (from the French of Mahon), 1813.  147. Hill,
Insanity, 1814.  148. Hutchinson, Infanticide, 1820.  149. Burrows. Insanity,
1820, 1828.
   General Treatises.—150. Farr,  Saml., Elements  of  Medical  Jurisprudence
(founded on the German of Faselius, 1767, see 42), London, 12mo. 1788 ; 2d ed.,
pp. 139, 12mo. 1814.  151. Bartley, Treatise on Forensic Med. (said to  be very
insignificant), Bristol, 12mo. 1815.  152.  Male, Epitome of Forensic Medicine
(largely from the German  of Plenck, see 47), London, 12mo. 1816 ; 2d ed., 1818.
153. Smith, John Gordon, Principles  of Forensic Medicine (the first book  in
the English  language of any original merit), London, pp. 503, 8vo. 1821 ; 2d ed.,
1824; 3d ed., 1827.  154.  Paris and Fonblanque, Medical  Jurisprudence (best
book to  its date),  London, 3  vs.  1823.   155.  Forsyth, Synopsis of  Modern
Medical Jurisprudence (denounced by  Beck as a wholesale plagiarism), London,
pp. 600, 1829.    156. Ryan, Manual of Med. Jurisp.,  London, pp.309, 8vo.
1831; 2d ed., 1836.   157. Chitty, Med. Jurisp. (never completed), London,
Part I.  8vo. 1834.   158.  Traill, Outlines of Med. Jurisp.,  Edinb.  12mo. 1836 ;
2d ed.,  1840.   159. Brady, Med.  Jurisp., Dublin, 1839.    160. Taylor, A. S ,
Elements of Med. Jurisp., Vol. I., pp.511, 8vo., London, 1836 (a  second volume
never published).   Manual of Med. Jurisp., 1st ed., 1844; 8th ed., 1866; 9th
ed., London, pp. 772, 8vo.  1874.  N. B.—Seven American and one German ed.,
1858.   161. Guy, W. A.,  Principles of Forensic Medicine, London, 1843; 2d
ed., pp. 534, 1861 ; 3d ed., 1868.   162. Taylor, A. S., Principles and Practice
of Medical Jurisprudence, London, 1865 ; 2d ed., 2 vols. pp. 723,  672, 8vo. 1873.
163.  Husband, Forensic Medicine and Med.  Police, Edinb. 1x73.  164.  Wood-
man and Tidy, Handy-book of For. Med. and Toxicology,  London, 1875.
  Special Treatises.—Among the most distinguished British authors on special
subjects, and whose books have not  been republished  in America (see 201  to
390), may be  mentioned—165. Conolly, 1830.  166. Pagan, 1839, 1843—both
on the Med. Jurisp. of Insanity.  167. Watson, Alex., Homicide, 1837 ;  2d ed.,
1842.  168. Gavin, H., Feigned and Factitious Diseases, 1843. 
32
CHAILLE,
  CONTRIBUTION  TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN
                   MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.


  Republications of foreign works are indicated by a t. and pamphlets by a *;  the latter are
for the most part reprints from Journals, etc.  Some works not strictly medico-legal are
given, because often referred to by medico-legists.

201.  fCox, J. M.  Observations on Insanity,  Med. Jurisp. of, from the 2d Lon-
       don ed.  Phila., 1811.
202.  Rush, Benj.  Introductory Lectures (16th).  8vo.   Phila., 1811.
203.  Rush, Benj.  Diseases of 'the Mind.  8vo. pp. 367.   Phila., 1812.  2d and
       3d ed.?  4th ed.  1830, 5th ed. 1835.
204.  *Ducachet.  Dissertation  on Action of  Poisons.  New York, 1817.
205.  *Beck, John B.  Infanticide.  8vo. pp. 95.  New York, 1817. (Republished
       with additions, etc., in the various editions of " Beck's Med. Jurisp.")
206.  fOrlila.   Poisons, by R. H. Black.  12mo. pp. 240.  Baltimore, 1819,
207.  fCooper, Thos.   Tracts on Med. Jurisp., viz., of Farr, Dease, Male, and
       Haslam  (British).  8vo. pp. 456.  Phila., 1819.
208.  fHighmore.  Law of Idiocy and  Lunacy.  8vo.   Exeter, N.  H.,  1822.
       (1st Am. from last English ed.)
209.  Beck, T. R.  Elements of Medical Jurisprudence,  with the Chapters on
       Infanticide and Abortion, bv J. B. Beck.  (First  American General
       Treatise.)   2 vols., 8vo. pp. 418, 471.   Albany, N. Y., 1823.
     2d ed. with notes by Dr. W. Dunlop.  London, 1825.
     3d and 4th eds. dates  unknown.  One at least was a London ed. with notes
       by Dunlop and  Darwell.
     German  edition (translated).  Weimar,  1828.
     5th ed. (2d American ed.) by T. R. and J. B. Beck.  2 vols., pp.  661, 694.
       Albany, 1835.   5th ed. London, 1836.
     6th ed. (3d American) pp. 670, 743.  Phila., 1838.
     7th ed., with notes by Dunlop and Darwell.  pp. 1138.  London, 1842.
     8th and  9th editions,  dates and places of publication unknown.
     10th  ed.   2 vols.  Albany, 1850-51.
     11th  ed., revised by Dr. C. R. Oilman, with Drs. D. T. Brown, R. H. Coo-
       lidge, A. Flint, Sr., B. W. McCready, S. St. John,  Jno. Watson, and J. P.
       White, as Collaborators.  8vo.  2'vols., pp. 884, 1003.  Phila., 1860.
     12th  ed.   Same Editor and  Collaborators.  8vo.   2  vols., pp. 894,  995.
       Phila., 1863.
210.  *Webster, J.  Essay on Med. Jurisp.  8vo. pp. 52.  Phila., 1824.
211.  fMorgagni.  Seats and Causes of Disease.  (Cooke's English Translation.)
       8vo.   2 vols.  Boston and Phila., 1824.
212.  fOrfila.  Poisons  (translated by J. G. Stevenson).   12mo.   Boston, 1826.
213.  Warren, J. C.   Dislocations of Hip-Joint  (Malpractice;.   8vo. pp.  142.
       Cambridge, Mass., 1826.
214.  *Dunglison,  R.  Syllabus of Lectures  on Med. Jurisp.   8vo  pn  142
       Univ.  Ya., 1827.
215.  Horner,  W. E.   Healthy and Diseased Appearances of the Mucous Mem-
       branes of the Stomach and Intestines.  [With experiments.]  Am Journ
       Med. Sci., pp. 1-40, Nov. 1827.
216.  *Simons, T. Y.  Mental Alienation, Med. Jurisp.  of.  8vo   Charleston
       S.  C, 1828.                                                       '
217.  Horner, W. E.   Pathological Anatomy.  8vo. pp. 460.  Phila.  1829.
218.  Lobstein,  J.  F  D.  Semeiology  of Countenance,  etc., in Med  Jurisn
       8vo. pp. 150.  N. Y., 1830.                                  '      l '
219.  *Hance, W.  Appeal to Citizens of Ohio.  . . .  Medical Law  etc   8vo
       pp. 20.  Columbus, O.,  1830. 
              ADDRESS  ON  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.            33

220.  Rush, B.  Diseases of the Mind.  (See 203.)  4th ed.   1830.
221.  Dubois, W.  E.  Trial of Lucretia Chapman (Poison).   8vo.  pp.  213.
       Phila., 1832.
222.  Coley,  H. (of London).  Treatise on Med. Jurisp.  Part I. Poisons and
       Asphyxia.  (Never completed.)  Svo. pp. 72.  N. Y., 1832.
223.  fRj'an.  Manual of Med. Jurisp., with notes, etc., by Dr.  R. E. Griffith.
       1st Am. ed.   Svo. pp. 327.  Phila., 1832.
224.  Ducatel.  Toxicology (from Chris/i son, and for practitioners rather than
       for medico-legists).  12mo.  Bait., 1833.
225.  Gross,  S. D.   Experiments  on Strangling.   Western  Journ. Med. and
       Surg.  Yol. 9, 1833.
226.  f Combe, And.  Mental Derangements (1st Am. ed).  8vo.  pp. 336.   Bos-
       ton,  1834.
227.  Beck,  J. B.  Researches  in Medicine and  Med. Jurisp.   8vo., 2d ed.,
       pp. 258.  N. Y., 1835.
228.  Williams, S. W.  Catechism of Med. Jurisp.   (Yery severely criticized.)
       18mo. pp. 205.  Northampton, Mass., 1835.
229.  Beck, T. R. and J. B. Med. Jurisp.   (See 209.)  5th ed , 1835.
230.  Rush, B.  Diseases of the Mind.  (See 203.)  5th ed. 1835.
231.  tChitty.  Med. Jurisp.   Part I. Am. ed.  8vo. pp. 509.   (Never  com-
       pleted.)  Phila., 1836.
232. f Prichard, J. C.  Insanity.  Am. ed.   8vo. pp. 111.  Phila., 1837.
233.  fTaylor, A. S.  Observations  and Experiments on Lungs of New-Born
       Children.   Phila.,  1838.
234. Ray, Isaac.   Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity.   (" Best  book in Eng-
       lish  language to date," reprinted in England and Scotland.)  8vo.   Bos-
       ton,  1838.
     2d ed., pp. 490, 1844; 3d ed., 1853;  4th ed., 1860; 5th ed.,  pp. 658, 1871.
235.  Beck, T. R. & J. B.  Med. Jurisp.  (See 209.)  6th ed., 1838.
236. *Hodge, H. L.  Criminal Abortion.   Phila., 1839 ;  Phila., 1854; 12mo.
       pp.  44, Phila., 1X69; 4th ed., 1873.
237. Gross, S. D.    Pathological Anatomy.   2 vols., 1839. 2d  ed., 8vo. pp.
       822,  Phila., 1845;  3d ed., pp. 771,  1857.
238. f Montgomery.  Signs and Symptoms of Pregnancy.   pp. 220, Phila.,
       1839 ;  from London ed., 1837.   2d Am. from 2d London ed., 8vo. pp.
       568, Phila., 1857.
239. fTraill.  Outlines  of Med. Jurisp.;  (from 2d Edinb. ed.)   8vo. pp. 234.
       Phila., 1841.
240. fWinslow, F.  Plea of Insanity in Criminal Cases.  8vo. pp. 111.  Boston,
       1X43.
241. Ray, I.  Med. Jurisp. of Insanity.  (See  234.)  2d ed.,  1844.
242. Gross, S. D.  Path. Anatomy.  (See 237.)  2d ed., 1845.
243. f Esquirol.   Mental Maladies.   Notes, etc., by E. K. Hunt.   8vo. pp. 496.
       Phila., 1845.
244. f Christison.   Poisons.  Edited by Jno. Bell.   8vo. pp. 756. Phila., 1845.
       (Reprint 4th Edinb. ed.)
245. f Forbes, Tweedie, and Conolly.   Cyclopaedia of Practical  Medicine, with
       additions, etc., by R. Dunglison.  (Contains many valuable articles on
       Med. Jurisp.)  4 vols. Svo.  Phila., 1845.
246. f Guy,  W-  A-  Forensic  Medicine, with Notes, etc., by  Chas. A. Lee.
       8vo. pp. 771.  New York, 1845.
247. fTaylor, A. S.  Manual of Med. Jurisp., with Notes, etc., by R. E. Griffith,
       M.D.  8vo. pp. 539.  Phila.,  1845.
     Same by Griffith.  2d Am. from 3d London ed., 1850.
     Same by E. Hartshorne, M.D.  3d Am. from  4th London ed., 1853.
     Same by Hartshorne.  4th Am. from  5th London ed., 1856.
     Same by Hartshorne.  5th Am. from  7th London ed., 1861.
     Same by C. C. Penrose, Esq.  6th Am. from  8th London ed., 1866.
     Same by Jno. J. Reese, M.D.  7th Am. from  9th London ed., 1873.
                                    4* 
34
CHAILLE,
248. Crozier.  Life and Trial of Dr. Abner Baker. 8vo. pp. 152.  Louisville, Ky.,
       1846.
249. *Purple, S.  S.   Corpus  Luteum.  (Med.-Legal, from N. Y. Jour. Med.)
       Svo. pp. 13.   N. Y., 1846.
250. Hall, B. F., Esq.   Freeman Trial (Van Nest Murder).  1847.
251. Costill, 0. H.   Pract. Treatise on Poisons. 12mo. pp. 160.  Phila., 1848.
252. *Taylor, A. S.  Poisons, with Notes, etc., by R. E. Griffith.  8vo. pp. 687.
       Phila., 1848.   2d  Am. from  2d London ed., 1859; 3d Am.  from  3d
       London ed., pp. 788, Phila., 1875.
253. Beck, T. R. & J. B.  Medical Jurisp.  (See 209.)  10th ed., 1850.
254. Dean, Amos, Esq., Prof. Med. Jurisp., etc.  Medical Jurisprudence.  8vo.
       pp. 664.  Albany,  N. Y., 1850.   2d ed., 1854 ; 3d ed., 1873.
255. Bemis, G., Esq.  Parkman-Webster Murder.  Boston, 1850.
256. fTaylor, A. S.  Maul, of Med. Jurisp.  (See 247.)  2d Am. ed., 1850.
257. *Dalton, J. C.  Corpus Luteum.  Trans. Am. Med. Asso., vol. 4,1851.
258. *Storer, D. H.  Address on Med. Jurisp.  Boston, 1851.
259. *Binney, H., Esq.  Coroner, Jurisdict. of.   Phila., 1853.
260. Ray, I."  Med. Jurisp. of Insanity.  (See 234.)   3d ed., 1853.
261. *Taylor, A. S.  Manl. Med. Jurisp.  (See 247.)   3d ed., 1853.
262. Dean, Amos, Esq.  Medical Jurisp.  (See  254.)  2d ed., 1854.
263. Hodge, H. L.   Criminal Abortion.  (See 236.)  2d ed., 1854.
264. Wharton, Francis, Esq., and Stille, Moreton, M.D.  Medical Jurisprudence.
       Svo. pp. 815.   Phila., 1855.   2d ed., " Wharton and Stille," and Prof.
       Alfred Stille',  M.D., pp. 1031, 1860; 3d ed., "Wharton  and StilM," and
       Drs. S. Ashhurst, Sinkler, and Amory, two vols, in  three, Phila., 1873.
265. Wharton, F., Esq.  Mental Unsoundness.  Phila., 1855.
266. Hamilton, F. H.  Deformities after Fractures (Malpractice).  8vo. pp. 99,
       Phila., 1855, and Tr. Am. Med. Asso., vols. 8, 9, 10.  Treatise on Frac-
       tures and Dislocations, 8vo. pp. 757, Phila., 1860; 5th ed., 1875.
267. *Wetherill.  Adipocere and its  Formation.  Folio, pp. 25.  Phila., 1855,
       and in Tr. Am. Philosoph. Society, vol. 11, Phila.
268. *Lee, C. A.  Case of John Hendrickson, Jr., for Wife-murder (Poison).
       8vo.  pp. 41.   N. Y., 1855.
269. Purple, S. S.  Wounds of Heart, and their Relations  to For. Med., with
       42 Cases.  N. Y. Med. Times, May, 1855.
270. fBrierre  de  Boismont.   Hallucinations.   (Am. from 2d Paris ed.)  8vo.
       pp. 553.  Phila., 1855.
271. *Gilman, C. R.  Relations of Medical to Legal  Profession.  8vo. pp. 26.
       N. Y., 1856.
272. fTaylor, A. S.  Manual Med. Jurisp.   (See 247.)  4th Am. ed., 1856.
273. Gross,  S. D.   Path. Anat.  (See 237.)  3d ed., 1857.
274. *Scmmes, A. J.    Med.-Legal Duties  of  Coroners.  8vo. pp. 16, and Tr.
       Am.  Med. Asso.  Phila., 1857.
275. *Jarvis, E.   Criminal Insane.  8vo. pp. 39.  Utica, N. Y.,  1857.
276. *Earle, P.   Parish Will  Case (Apoplexy  and Paralysis).   Svo. no. 50.
       N. Y., 1857.
277. *Watson, Browne, etc.  Parish Will Case.  N. Y., 1857.
278. *Gilman, C.  R.   Case of C. B.  Huntington  (Insanity).    Svo.  pp. 24.
       N. Y., 1857.
279. *Suffolk Disk Med. Society.  Criminal Abortion.   8vo. pp 13    Boston
       1857.
280. f Otto, J.  Poisons, by W. Elderhorst.  N. Y., 1857.
281. f Montgomery.  Signs and Symptoms of Pregnancy.  (See  238.)  2d Am
       ed., 1857.
282. *Reese, D. M.   Moral Insanity, Med. Jurisp. of.   8vo. pp 26  and Tr
       Am.  Med. Asso.  Phila., 1858.                             '
283. *Coventry, C. B.   Med.  Jurisp. of Insanity.   8vo. pp. 56 and Tr Am
       Med. Asso.  Phila., 1858.                                      ' 
              ADDRESS ON MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.           35

 284. *Perkins, R. G.   Insanity in its Legal Relations.  Svo. pp. 24.  N. Y.,
       1858.
 285. *Davis, T. G. C.   Plea of Insanity in Case of R. C. Sloo.   8vo. pp. 53.
       St. Louis, Mo., 1858.
 286. fBucknill and Tuke.  Manual of Psycholog. Med.  Phila., 1858.
 287. *Fleming,  A.   Blood  Stains.   Pittsburg, Pa., 1861,  and Am.  Journ.
       Med. Sci., 1859.
 288. * Wright, M.D.   Drunkenness and Inebriate Asylums.   8vo. pp. 22.   Co-
       lumbus, 0., 1859.
 289. fTaylor, A. S.   Poisons.   (See 252.)   2d Am. ed., 1859.
 290. Elwell, J. J., M.D., Esq.   Malpractice and Medical Evidence. 8vo. pp. 588.
       N. Y., 1860.  2d ed., 1866 (?); 3d ed., 8vo., pp. 600, 1871.
 291. Hall, A. G.  Institutes of Med. Jurisp. (" A senseless monthly serial of
       a quack, having no reference, except in name, to Med. Jurisp.")  Svo.
       pp. 576.  Boston, 1860.
 292. Beck, T. R. and J. B.  Med. Jurisp.  (See 209.)   11th ed., 1860.
 293. Ray, I.  Med. Jurisp. of Insanity.  (See 234.)  4th ed., 1860.
 294. Wharton and Stille.  Med. Jurisp.  (See 264.)  2d ed., 1860.
 295. *Wharton, F.  Involuntary Confessions.  8vo. pp. 36.  Phila., 1860.
•296. * Wright, T. L.   Med. Leg., Inquiry on Influence of Chloroform.  8vo.
       pp. 32.  Columbus, O., 1860.
 297. f Winslow, F.  Brain and Mind.  1st Am. ed., Phila., 1860.

 N.B. " War between the States," 1861-1865.
 298. fTaylor, A. S.   Manl. Med. Jurisp.  (See  247.)  5th ed., 1861.
 299. *Swinburne, John.  Case of Rev. H. Budge (Wife-murder).  8vo. pp. 94.
       Albany, 1862, and Tr. Med. Soc. State of N. Y., 1862.
 300. *Swinburne, J.  Trial of Hendrickson (Wife-murder.  Aconite). 8vo. pp.
       16.  Phila., 1862.
 301. Beck, T. R. and J. B.  Med.  Jurisp.   (See  209.)  12th ed., 1863.
 302. *Parigot, J.  Legislation on Insanity.  8vo. pp. 14.  N. Y., 1865.
 302a.  ElwelPs Malpractice and Med. Ev.  (See 290.)   2d ed., 1866 (?).
 303. Seguin.  Idiocy.   8vo. pp. 457.  N. Y., 1866.
 304. Hammond, W. A.  Insanity  in its Medico-legal Relations.  8vo. pp. 72.
       N. Y., 1866.
 305. Storer, H. R.  Why Not ?   (Abortion.)  12mo.  pp. 91.  Boston, 1866.
       [2d ed., 1871?]
 306. f Winslow, F.  Obscure Dis. Brain and Mind, 2d Am. from 3d Lond. ed.
       8vo. pp. 483.  Phila., 1866.
 307. Wormley, Theo. G.  Micro-Chemisty of Poisons.  8vo. pp. 668.  N. Y.,
       1867.
 308. Day, A.  Methomania.   16mo.  Boston, 1867.
 309. Storer, H. R.   Is  it I?  (Abortion.)   12mo. pp. 154.  Boston, 1867.
 310. *Le Prohon.  Voluntary Abortion.  8vo. pp. 24.  Portland, Me., 1867.
 311. *Wetmore, E.  Law of New York regarding the Insane.   Svo.  pp. 35.
       Utica, 1867.
 312. *Forbes, W. S.  History of Anatomy Act  of Pa.  8vo.  Phila.,  1867.
 313. f Maudsley.  Mind, Physiol,  and Pathol, of.   8vo. pp. 442.   N. Y., 1867.
       2d ed., 1871.
 314. Storer and Heard.   Criminal Abortion. Svo. pp. 215.  Boston, 1868.
 315. *Todd, J.  Serpents in the Dove's Nest (Abortion).  8vo.pp.28. Boston,
       1868.
 316. *Lee, C. A.  Report on Insanity.   Svo. pp. 32.  Phila., 1868.
 317. Ordronaux, John.  Jurisprudence of Medicine in its Relations to the Laws
       of Contracts, Torts, and Evidence.   8vo. pp. 310.  Phila., 1869.
 318. Ordronaux, J.  Appointment of a Commissioner to examine Witnesses in
       Med.-legal Trials.   Tr. Am. Med. Asso.,  1869.
 319. Hodge.  Criminal Abortion.  (See 236.)  4th ed., 1869. 
36
CHAILLE,
320.  Richardson, Joseph G.  Blood Stains.  Am. Journ. Med. Sci., July, 1869.
321.  Echeverria.  Epilepsy.  8vo. pp. 386.  N. Y., 1870.
322.  *Hammond, W. A.  Case of Daniel McFarland (Insanity).  8vo. pp. 35,
       N. Y., 1870, and in Quart. Journ. Psychol. Med.
323.  *Lee, Charles A.  Case of Carlton Gates (Insanity).  8vo. pp. 30. N. Y.,
       1870, and in First Series of Papers of N. Y. Med.-Legal Soc.
324.  *Ray, I.   Trial of John Reynolds.  N. Y., 1870.
325.  *Nebinger.  Criminal Abortion.  8vo.  Phila., 1870.
3-^6.  Hammond, W. A.  Diseases of the Nervous System. Svo. pp. 754. N. Y.,
       1871.  (6th ed., 1876.)
327.  Storer, H.  R.  Reflex Insanity in Women.  8vo. pp. 236.  Boston, 1871.
328.  Calkins, A.  Opium  and the Opium Appetite.  8vo. pp. 390.  Phila., 1871.
329.  Rav, I.  Med. Jurisp. of Insanity.  (See 234.)  5th ed., 1871.
330.  Elwell, J. J.  Malpr. and Med. Evidence.   (See 290.)   3d ed., 1871.
331.  *Gray, J. P.  Insanity, Dependence on Physical Dis.  8vo. Utica, N. Y.,
       1871.
332.  *Conklin, W. J.   Relations of Epilepsy to Insanity and Med. Jurisp.  8vo.
       pp. 43.  Dayton, O., 1X71.
333.  *Dimon, D.  Freeman Trial (Murder). Auburn, N. Y., 1871.
334.  f Blandford.  Insanity,  Medical  and  Legal, with  a Synopsis of  the laws
       of the several States of  the Union  respecting  the  confinement of the
       Insane, by I. Ray.  Svo. pp. 472.   Phila., 1871.
335.  f Maudsley.  Body and Mind.  12mo. pp. 155.  N. Y".,  1871.
336.  f Maudsley.  Mind, Physiology and Pathol, of.  (See 313.)  2d ed., 1871.
337.  Delafield, F.  Post-mortem Examinations.  8vo. pp. 376.  N. Y., 1872.
338.  Fisher, T.  W.   Plain Talk about Insanity  (Med.-legal).   8vo.  pp. 97.
       Boston,  1872.
339.  Day, A. The Opium Habit. N. Y., 1872.
340.  *Peet, I. L.  Physical Status and Criminal Responsibility of the totally
       uneducated Deaf and Dumb.  8vo. pp.  31.  N. Y., 1872, and  in First
       Ser. Papers N. Y. Med.-Legal Soc.
341.  *Van de Warker.  Detection of Criminal Abortion.   8vo. pp. 88.  Bos-
       ton, 1872.
342.  *New  York Med.-legal Society.  Report on Criminal Abortion.   8vo. pp.
       15.  N. Y., 1872.
343.  *Crothers, T. D.  Trial of Mrs. Dr. E. Burleigh (Abortion).  8vo.  Albany,
       1872.
344.  *Williams, P.  C.  Ketchum-Wharton  Trial  (Antimony).   8vo.  pp. 31.
       Baltimore, 1872, and Med. and Surg. Report., Phila., vol. xxvi.  (See
       also Am. Journ. Med. Sci., April, 1872.)
345.  *Wey, \V. C.   Medical Responsibility and Malpractice.  8vo. pp 35
       Albany,  1872.
346.  *Stevens,  T. M.  Med.-legal  Science.   8vo.   Trans. Ind. State Med. Soc.
       Indianapolis,  1872.
346a. Dean, Amos, Esq.  Med. Jurisp.  (See 254.)  3d ed., 1873.
347.  Ray, I.  Contributions to Mental Pathology.  8vo. pp. 558.  Boston 1873.
348.  Hammond, W.  A.  Insanity in its Relations to Crime   8vo   on   7 7*
       N. Y., 1873.                                               "  ll'
349.  Wharton and Stille.   Med. Jurisp.  (See 264.)  3d ed., 1x73.
350.  Hodge.  Criminal Abortion.  (See 236.)   4th ed., 1873.
351.  *Stevens,  T. M.   Expert Testimony.  8vo.  Indianapolis, 1873  and in
       Ind.  Med. Journ.
352.  *McClelland.   Civil Malpractice.  8vo. pp. 74.  Chicago 1873.
353.  *Field, D.  D., Esq.  Emotional Insanity.   Svo.  N. Yr 1873.
354.  *Clinton,  H. L., Esq.  Defence of Insanity  in Criminal Cases  N V
       1873.                                                     '      "'
355.  *Morse, D. A.   Dipsomania and Drunkenness,  pp. 52, and in Ohio State
       Med. Soc. Trans.,  1873. 
             ADDRESS ON  MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.            £7

356.  *Bell, Clark, Esq.  Inaug. Address N. Y. Med.-Legal Soc.   8vo, pp. 11.
       N. Y., 1873.
35'7.  Echeverria.  Epilepsy in  relation to Med. Jurisp. and Epileptic Insanity.
       Am. Journ. Insanity, Utica, April and July, 1873.
358.  fTaylor, A. S.  Principles and Practice of Med. Jurisp.  (Reprint of 2d
       London ed.)  8vo.  2 vols.  Phila., 1873.
359.  fTaylor, A. S.  Manual Med. Jurisp.  (See 247.)  7th Am  ed., 1873.
360.  f Tuke, D. H.  Influence of Mind on Body.  8vo. pp. 415.  Phila., 1X73.
361.  fWynter, A.  Borderlands of Insanity.  Am. ed.  12mo. pp. 314.  N. Y.,
       1873.
362.  Reese, Jno. J.   Manual of Toxicology.  8vo. pp. 507.  Phila., 1874.
363.  N. Y. Med.-Legal  Soc.  "First  Series of Papers."  8vo. pp. 552.  N. Y.,
       1874.   (By Judge Campbell, Wm. and Jacob Shrady, and Tillou, Esq'rs,
       Mr. I. L. Peet, and Drs. O'Dea, Rogers, Lee, Hammond, Burr, Clymer,
       De Marmon, Parsons, and Peters.)
364.  *Bell, C, Esq.   Inaug.  Address N.  Y.  Med.-Legal Soc.   8vo. pp. 23.
       N. Y., 1874.
365.  *Beard, G. M.  Legal Responsibility in Old  Age.  8vo. pp. 42.  N. Y'.,
       1874.
366.  *Morse, D. A.  General Paralysis and Blackburn Case.  pp. 120.  1874.
367.  *Morse, D. A.   Monomania,  pp. 46.  This and 366 in Ohio State Med.
       Soc. Trans., 1874.
368.  *Clymer, M.  Influence of  Epilepsy on  Criminal  Responsibility.   8vo.
       pp. 25.  Phila., 1874.
369.  *Howard, E. L.   Legal  Relations of Emotional  Insanity.   8vo.,  and
       Trans.  Am. Med. Assoc.  Phila., 1874.
370.  *Peugnet, E.   Gunshot  Wounds  of Abdomen (Stokes-Fisk Murder).
       N. Y., 1874.
371.  fMaudsle}^.  Responsibility in  Mental Disease.   8vo. pp.  313.  N. Y.,
       1874.
372.  f Bucknill and Tuke.  Manual of Psycholog. Med.  8vo.  Phila., 1874.
373.  *Richardson, Jos. G.  Value of High Powers in Blood-Stains.  8vo. pp.
       12, and  in Am. Journ.  Med. Sci., July, 1874, and London Mic. Journ.,
       Sept. 1874.
374.  *Richardson, J. G.  Diagnosis of Blood-Stains,  pp. 5.  Am. Journ. Med.
       Sci., April, 1875.
375.  Richardson, J. G.  Improved Method for Micro-Spectrosc. Test for Blood-
        Stains.  Phila. Med. Times,  Nov.  1875.
376.  *Woodward, J.  J.  Blood-Stains in Criminal Cases,  pp. 12, and in  Am.
       Journ. Med. Sci., January, 1875.
377.  Smith, J. E.  Diagnosis of Blood Stains.  Cinn. Med. Times, April, 1875.
378.  *Ray, I.   Duncan Will Case, 1875.
379.  *All'en, N.  State Med. in its relations to Insanity.  Boston, 1875.
380.  *Bell,C.,Esq.  Inaug. Ad. N. Y. Med.-Legal Soc.  8vo.pp. 16.  N.Y.,1875.
381.  fTaylor,  A. S.  Poisons.   (See 252.)   3d ed., 1875.
382.  f Sheppard.  Madness—Med., Social, and Legal, from London ed. of 1873.
       8vo. pp. 186.  Phila., 1875.
383.  fPoppesis, B.   Hermaphrodism (Med. legal), Translated from the French
       by Dr.  E. W.  Sawyer,  Chicago,  1875.
384.  fSieveking.  Med. Adviser in Life Insurance, from London ed. of 1874.
       12mo.  "phila., 1875.
385.  Cowperthwait, A. C.  Insanity in its  Med.-legal Relations.  8vo. pp. 80.
       Phila., 1876.
386.  Hammond, W. A.   Diseases of the Nervous  System.  (See 326.)  6th. ed.,
       1876.
387.  *Bell,C.,Esq. Valedict.Ad.N. Y. Med.-Legal Soc. 8vo.pp.26. N.Y.,1876.
388.  f Brown, J. H. B.   Jurisp. of  Insanity (from the 2d  English ed.).   Svo.
       pp.713.  Phila., 1876. 
38
CHAILLE,
389. f Naquet.   Legal Chemistry (English translation from  French).  [It has
        16 pp. Bibliog. of Toxicology, etc.]   12mo. pp.  175.   N. Y.,  1S76.
390. f Woodman and  Tidy.   Handy-book of For. Med. and Toxicol.   Phihi.,
        1876.   (In press, August, 1876.)
            Index to Subjects in the American Bibliography,

                                   201 to 390.

   General Subject—-Beck, T. R.  209.  Beck, J. B. 227.  Bell, C. 356,  364, 380, 387.
fChitty,  231.  fCooper, 207.   Beau, 254.  Dunglison, 214.   fForbes, etc., Cvcl. Pract.
Med.  245.    Gilman, 271.  tGuy,  246.   Hall,  291.   Hance, 219.  N. Y. Med.-Legal
Society Papers,  363.  Rush, 202.   fRyan, 223.  Stevens, 346.   Storer, 258.   fTaylor,
247, 358.  fTraill, 239. Webster, 210. Wharton and Stille, 264.  Williams, 228.   fWood-
man and Tidy, 390.
  Abortion  and  Infanticide.—Beck, J. B.  205.  Crothers,  343. Hodge, 236.   Le
Prohon, 310.   Xcbinger, 325.   N. Y. Med.-Legal Society, 342.  Storer, 305, 309.  Storer
and Heard, 314.  Suffolk  Dist. Med. Society, 279.  Todd, 315.  Van de Warker, 341.
  Alienation, Mental.   (Intemperance;  Deaf and Dumb.)—Allen, 379.   Beard, 365.
tBlandford, 334.  fBrierre de  Hoismont, 270.  fBrown,  388.   fBucknill and Tuke, 286.
Clinton, 354.   Clymer, 368.  fCombe, 226.  Conklin, 332.  Coventry, 283. Cowperthwait,
385.  fCox, 201.  Davis,  285.  Earle, 276.  Echeverria, 321, 357.   tEsquirol, 243.  Field,
353.   Fisher, 338.    Gilman, 271.   Gray. 331.   Hammond,  304, 326, 348.   fHighmore.
208.  Howard, 369.   Jarvis, 275.  Lee, 323.  fMaudsley, 313. 335, 371.   Morse, 366, 367.
N.  Y. Med.-Legal  Society  Papers,  363.   Parigot, 302.   Perkins, 284.   tPrichard,  232.
Ray, 234, 324, 347, 378.  Reese, 280.  Rush, 203.  Seguin, 303.  tSheppard, 382.   Simons,
216.  Storer,  327.  fTuke, 360.  Watson, Browne, etc.  277.  Wetmore, 311.  Wharton,
265.295.  fAViuslow, 240, 306.  Wright. 296.  fWynter, 361.  (Intemperance).—Calkins,
328.  Day, 308, 339.  Morse, 355.   N. Y. Med.-Legal Society Papers, 363.   Wright, 288.
[Deaf and Dumb).—Peet, 340.
  Asphyxia, etc.—Coley,  222.  Gross, 225.  fTaylor, 233.
  Blood Stains.—Fleming, 287.  Richardson, 320, 373,  374, 375.  Smith,  377.  AVood-
ward,  376.
   Coroner.—Binney, 259.   Semmes, 274.
  Life Insurance.—N. Y. Med.-Legal Society Papers, 363.  fSieveking,  384.
  Malpractice and Medical  Ecidence.—Klwell, 290.   Hamilton,  266.   Lobstein,  218.
McClelland, 352.   Ordronaux, 317, 318.   Stevens, 351.  Warren,  213.  Wey, 345.
  Obstetric Medical Jurisprudence.—Dalton,  2.37.  fMontgomery,  238.  Poppesio, 383.
Purple, 249.
  Pathological Anatomy.—Delafield, 337.   Forbes, 312,  Gross, 237.   Horner,  217.
fMorgagni, 211.  Wetherill, 267.
  Poisons,  Toxicology, Legal Chemistry.—fChristison, 244.  Coley. 222.  Costill,  251.
Ducachet, 204.  Ducatel, 224.   Lee, 268.  fNaquet, 389.   fOrfila, 206, 212.  fOtto  280
Reese, 362.  Swinburne, 300.   fTaylor. 252.  Wormley, 307.
  Trials, Legal.  Celebrated Cases.—Baker, Dr.  Abner, Life and Trial of, 248.  Blackburn
Case (General Paralysis), 366.   Budge, Rev. H. (Wife-murder), 299.  Burleigh, Mrs. Dr. E.
(Abortion), 343.  Chapman, Lucretia, Trial of, for Poisoning. 221.  Duncan Will  Case,
378.  Fisk, Jas., Stokes-Fisk Murder (Abdominal  Wounds), 370.  Freeman Trial (Murder)'   i
250, 333.  Gates, Carlton, Case of  (Insanity),  323.   Hendrickson, Jno., Wife-murder
(Aconite), 268.  Huntington,  C.  B.,  Case  of (Insanity), 278.  Ketchum-Wharton  Trial
(Antimony), 344.   McFarland, Dan'l, Case of (Insanity), 322.  Parish  Will Case (Apoplexy
and Paralysis), 276, 277.  Parkman-Webster Murder, 255. Reynolds, Jno.,  Trial  of, 324.
Steinecke-Schoeppe Case (Poisoning),  363.
  Wounds.—Peugnet, 370.   Purple,  269.
                       General Alphabetical Index.

  N. B.—Under each letter, the authors are recorded in the following national order : Italy Germany
France, Great Britain, and the United States.  Foreign authors, recorded among the American' are
designated by a f-

  Albertus, 31.   Ammann, 22.—Allen, 379.

  Barzelotti. 5.  Beccaria, 19.—Baumer, 45.  Behrens, 23.  Bene. 58.   Bernhold  40
Bergmann, 77.  Bernt,  62.  Booker, 86.  Boemer, 39.  Bohu, 27.   Braendel  43.   Brach 
                 ADDRESS  OX  MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE.              39

 fSn  B"?hner» 93.—Bayard,  125.  Belloc,  116.  Bergeron. 128.   Bertrand, 118.   Biessy,
 1-0.   Blegni, li)i.  Briand,  Briand and  Bresson, Briand and Chaude, 122.   Brierre de
 Boismo.it  133.   Bruhier. 109.-Bartley,  151.  Brady, 159.  Burrows, 149—Beard. 365.
 Beck, J. B. 205. 209.  227.   Beck, T. R. 209.   Bell, 356,  364, 380, 387.   Bemis, 255.
 Binney  2o9.   fBlandford, 334.   fBrierre de  Boismont,  270.  fBrown,  388.  fBucknill
 and iuke, 286, 372.

   Cledillot, 10.—Casper. 88.  Condronchus,  20._Capuron. 134.  Chaussier, 113.—Chitty,
 loj.    Colhnson, 145.    Conolly.  165.   Crichton, 141.—Calkins,  328.   fChitty   231.
 tChnstison, 244.  Clinton. 354.,  Clymer, 368.  Coley, 222.  fCombe, 226.  Conklin, 332.
 fCooper, 207.  Costill,  251.  Coventry, 283.  Cowperthwait,  385.   fCox, 201.  Crothers
 343.   Crozier, 248.

   Dorx, 63.—Devaux,  108.  Devergie,  124a.  Duval, 104.—Dalton. 257.   Davis  2S5.
 Day, 308, 339.  Dean,  254.  Delafield, 337.  Dimon, 333.  Dubois, 221.   Ducachet, 204.
 Ducatel, 224.   Dunglison, 214.

   Eschenbach,  36.  Erhard,  54.—Esquirol, 131.—Earle, 276.   Echeverria, 321,  357.
 Elwell, 290.   fEsquirol, 243.

   Fortunatus Fidei.is. 1.—Fahner,  52.  Faselius,  42.   Fischer, 26.  Freidreich,  73.
 Furstenau,  38.—Fodere, 114.—Farr,  150.   Forsyth, 155.—Field, 353.   Fisher,  338.
 Fleming, 287.  fForbes, etc., Cycl. Pract, Med. 245.   Forbes, 312.

   Gandoi.fi, 17.   Gianelli, I 2.   Grotanelli, 9.—Goelicke, 32.   Guntner, 83.—Gendri, 106.
 Georget, 130.—Gavin,  168.  Goodwyu, 140.  Guy,  161.—Gilman,  209, 271, 278.  Gray
 331.   Gross, 225, 237.  fGuy, 246.

   Hai.ler,  48.   Hauska, 87.   Hebenstreit, 37.  Heinroth, 97.  Henke, 60.   Hoffbauer,
 96.   Hofmau, 89.—Haslam, 142.   Hunter. 139.  Husband, 163.  Hutchinson,  148.—Hall,
 A. G. 291.  Hall, B. F. 250.   Hamilton, 266.  Hammond.  304, 322, 326, 348.   Hance,
 219.   fHighmore, 208.   Hodge, 236.   Horner.  215, 217.   Howard, 369.
   John, 51.—Johnson, 146.   Johnstone, 143.—Jarvis, 275.

   Kaxnegiesser, 44.    Klose, 64.   Kraft-Ebing, 99.  Krahmer, 84, 85.   Kraus  and
 Pichler, 94.

   Lazzaretti, 16.—Libavius,  21.  Lion,  91.   Loder, 49.  Loew,  33.  Ludwig, 41.—
 Lecieux, 119.  Legrand du Saulle, Ortolan,  and  Naquez. 126.   Legrand du  Saulle, 127.
 Louis, A. 112.—Lee, 246, 268, 316, 323.  Le  Prohon, 310.'  Lobstein, 218.

   Martini, 6.   Morgagni, 18.—Masius,  57.  Meckel,  67, 80. Mende, 66.  Metzger, 50.
 Mittermaier, 98.   Miiller, 53.—Mahon, 115.   Marc.  132.—Male. 152.—fMaudsley, 313,
 335,352.  McClelland,  352.  fMontgomery, 238.   fMorgagni, 211.   Morse, 355, 366, 367.
   Net, 76.  Nicolai. 75.  Niemann, 61, 69.—f Naquet, 389.  Nebinger, 325.  N.Y. Med.-
 Legal Society, 342, 363..

   Orfila, 121.—Ordronaux, 317, 318.  fOrfila, 206, 212.   fOtto, 280.

   Perrone,  13.   Presutti,  14.—Pichler.  90.   Platner,  68.   Plenck, 47.—Par6, 100.
 Pinel, 129.   Pineau,  101.  Poilroux, 136.  Prevost, 111.—Pagan, 166.  Paris and Fon-
 blanque, 154.   Percival, 138.  Perfect,  144.—Parigot, 302.   Peet, 340.  Perkins, 284.
 Peuguet, 370.  fPoppesio, 383.   fPrichard, 232.   Purple, 249, 269.

   Quextxer, 82.

   RisoroA. 11.—Rolff, 74.   Roose, 95.—Riolan, 100.—Ryan, 156.—Ray,  234, 324, 347,
 378.  Reese, D.  M. 282.  Reese, J. J. 362.  Richardson, 320, 373-4-5.  Rush, 202, 203.
 fRyan, 223.

   Sidoti, 4.  Speranza, 8.—Schauenstein, 92.  Schlegel, 49. Schmidtmuller, 56.  Schraud,
 55.  Schurinaver. 81.  Siebenhaar, 72.  Siebold, 79.  Sikora,  46.  Sporer, 71.   Sprengel,
 65.  Storck, 34.—Sebitz, 105.  Sedillot, 123.—Smith, J. G. 153.—Seguin, 303.  Semmes,
 274.   fSheppard, 382.   fSieveking. 384.  Simons, 216.  Smith,  377.   Stevens, 346, 351.
 Storer, D.  H. 258. Storer, H. R. 305, 309. 327.  Storer  and Heard, 314.  Suffolk Dist.
 Med. Society, 279.  Swinburne, 299, 300.
  Taurixt. 7.  Tortosa,  3.  Treschi,  15.—Teichmeyer, 30.  Tropanneger, 35.—Tagereau,
 103.   Tardieu, 137.  Trebuchet, 135.   Trinquier, 124.—Taylor, 160, 162.  Traill, 158.—
fTaylor, 233, 247, 252, 358.  Todd, 315.  fTraill, 239.  fTuke, 360.
  Valentini, 25, 29.—Verdier,  110.  Vigne,  117.—Van de Warker, 341.
IWi.u.^l  L    ARY  OF  MEDICINE
       WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 
40       CHAILLE,  ADDRESS ON MEDICAL  JURISPRUDENCE.

  Wagner,  70.  Wildberg, 59.  Wolf, 24.—Watson, 167.'  Woodman and  Tidy, 164.—
Warren.  213.  Watson, Browne,  etc.  277.   Webster, 210.   Wetherill. 267.   Wetmore,
311.  Wey,  345.  Wharton, 265,  295.   Wharton  and Stille\ 264.  Williams, P. C. 344.
Williams, \S. W. 22S.  fWinslow. 240, 297, 306.  f Woodman and Tidy, 390.   Woodward,
376.  Wormley, 307.  Wright, M. P. 288.  Wright, T. L. 296.   fWynter, 361.
  Zacchias, 2.—Zittman, 28.

  For  bibliographical and  other  aid I  owe  hearty thanks  to  my colleagues, Professors
S. M. Bemiss, M.D., T. G. Richardson, M.D., Frank Hawthorn, M.D. (deceased), and to
Drs. W. II. Watkins, and E. Dreifus, of New Orleans ; to Dr. John S. Billings, Assistant-
Surgeon,  U.  S. A. (Surgeon-General's Library);  to Dr. Francis H. Brown, of Boston;,to
Professors S. D. Gross, and John J. Reese, and Dr. Joseph G.  Richardson, of Philadelphia ;
to Mr. Clark Bell,  ex-President of the  N. Y.  Medico-Legal Society, and  Prof. W.  A.
Hammond, of New York City; to Prof. A. B. Palmer,  M.D., of the Univ. of Michigan;
to Prof. D. A. Morse,  of Ohio;  and to Prof. A. S.  Taylor, of London, England.  Obliga-
tions to others have been acknowledged in the notes to the Address. 
 
jf -s---««;.JI!W<0.»flTIIIl 1THOI1TN 3NI3IQ3W JO ABVB8I1 HBOI1I
"^Ks.

I  /\
« V
IONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL


I03W JO ABVB8IT IVNOIIVN 3NI3I03W JO A a V X 9 II IVNOIIVN 3NI3I03W JO A » V B 8 I 1 IVNOIIVN 3NI3IQ3W









                                             '27"
i<!
|«ONAl LIBRARY OF ME Dl CI NE  N A T I O N A I I I B R A R Y O F M E D I C I N E N
JT !  ^S
ATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL
M03W JO ABVBail IVNOIIVN 3 N I 3 I 0 3 W JO A B V B 8 I T IVNOIIVN 3 N I D I 0 3 W JO A B V B 8 I 1 IVNOIIVN  3NI3I03W





                   I I
i^ ^
\  /)*
j- f K
ONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE  NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL

s V,^^
lyiv^
! .&\/ I  \^\ I" .^\/  f

II0 3W JO ABVB8I1 TVNOIIVN 3NI3I03W JO ABVB8I1 TVNOIIVN 3NI3I03M JO ABVBflll TVNOIIVN 3NI3I03W

rM^fc*'' ? W?KW ^ t#>!A^
if
l»riO*»l I I 3 I* A t Y OF MEDICINE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MIDintll
 
 
 Cf a if lord ==
 SPEEDY BINDER
-   Syracuse, N. Y.
----- Stockton, Calif.
   3NIDI03W JO AHVUSn 1VN0UVN

h  ThBSTTSD  WIN
    a0t7t0££82

9i8T <>fr£M 009 /y\
NLM051158414