NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NLM DDlD3bS5 D NLM001036550 TO THE HOMCEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS UNITED STAT E S. NEW YORK : 1871. \ / t8«JI TO Til K JPATHIC PHYSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES. In a pamphlet addressed to the "Homoeopathic Profession," and signed by Jacob Beakley, M. D., and others, late Profes- sors in the New York Homoeopathic Medical College, "the ex- professors'' express a "desire to place on record a truthful statement of the facts concerning the recent changes in said Col- lege, and the means which have been employed to effect them." Their statement is the only one that has been made public. It is a one-sided and an untruthful statement. It is prefaced by the motto, " Audi alteram partem." We propose to accept this invitation, and let the profession "hear the other side." The facts are already on " record " in the proceedings of the N. Y. Homoeopathic Medical Society of the County of New York, and the proceedings ot the Board of Trustees of the Col- lege: and a few citations from these proceedings will suffice to expose the "facts concerning the recent changes," as well as the very simple "means which were employed to effect them." At the regular meeting of the Iloimeopathic Medical Society of the County of New York, on the second Wednesday of April, 1870. Dr. S. Lilienthal, President of the Society, called Dr. McMurray to the Chair, and addressed the Society as follows : 391565 2 "As President of this Society, which, in my opinion, has in its charge the interests and good name of Homeopathy in New York, 1 feel it my duty to lay before the Society the following. facts : Two students were graduated in March last at the New York Homoeopathic Medical College, who were matriculants at the Philadelphia College, and regularly attended lectures there throughout the session, as I learn from the Registrar of the Philadelphia College, who likewise informs me that one of these students was examined in Philadelphia, and rejected, because not qualified. In view of these facts, I offer the following reso- lutions : Whereas, The Neir York II<>iim'athic Mcdind College has, at its last Commencement, conferred the degree of M. D. upon students who had not at- tended their last course of lectures at the aforesaid College, in contravention of their charter and the usage of all colleges; and Whereas, It has also conferred the degree of M. D. on a student who at- tended the Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia during the course of 18(59 and 1870, was examined hy the Faculty of the Philadelphia College, found not qualified to practice medicine, and was refused a Diploma, where- upon he came to New York to get a Diploma ; and Whereas, By such acts the New York Homwoptithic Medical College has forfeited the confidence of the Profession : therefore, Resolved, That the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the County of New York, refuses henceforth to accept the Diploma of the New York Homoeo- pathic Medical College as a sufficient credential for membership. On motion of Dr. L. Hallock, it was unanimously resolved that these resolutions be referred to a Committee of three, who were instructed to inquire into the facts ^alleged ; to invite the Dean, Faculty, and Trustees of the College to explain the ap- parent irregularities in conferring degrees; and to report at the next meeting of the Society. Drs. L. Hallock, H. D. Paine, and B. F. Joslin were appointed the Committee. EXTRACT From the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Homeopathic Medical Society of the County of New York, May 11th, 1870.] " At a regular meeting of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the County of N. Y., held May 11th, 1870, there were pres- ent Prof. S. B. Barlow, Prof. F. W. Hunt, and thirty-seven 3 other members ; the President,. Dr. Lilienthal, in the Chair. After preliminary business, Dr. L. Hallock, Chairman of the Committee to which were referred Dr. Lilienthal's resolutions, presented the following REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE: The Committee appointed at the last meeting to inquire into and report upon the complaint of the President against the New York Homoeopathic Medical College for conferring the degree of M. D. at its last (\>mmencement upon two students of the Hahnemann College of Philadelphia, one of whom had been there examined and rejected, respectfully report that they find the irregularity charged proven by the following testimony : 1st. The names of the two graduates (Messrs. X. and Y.) are found pub- lished among the matriculants of the College of Philadelphia of 1869-70, and are omitted from its list of graduates, but are published among the graduates of the Homoeopathic College of this city at its last Commencement. 2d. The Registrar of the College of Philadelphia, in answer to letters of inquiry, dis- tinctly and officially states that both the students named attended the entire course of lectures of the session of 1869-70 at that College ; that one of them was examined by the Faculty, found not qualified, and was refused a diploma, whereupon he came to New York, and was graduated here ; that the other student (Y.), upon seeing the requirements of the Philadelphia College, de- clined to apply for examination, but at the end of the session came to New York, and was also graduated here. This official statement is confirmed by the written testimony of two other students and graduates of the Philadelphia College, who state that both of these students were fellow-students with thern, and did attend the lectures at Philadelphia through the entire session, excepting the last few days, when they left for New York. One of these graduates, now located in New Jersey, also testifies under oath (which testimony is further confirmed by the oath of another graduate) that one of them told him that Professor Beakley had visited and examined him in his room in Philadelphia soon after the holidays ; and that this examination 4 was held in consequence of an agreement made with Professor Beakley during said student's visit to New York at the Christmas holidays, when Professor Beakley held out some special induce- ments to students to come here and graduate. These several statements seemed to the Committee to estab- lish the truth of the allegations against the New York College b yond doubt : but, desirous to afford the College an opportunity to explain, or, if possible, successfully to disprove such discredit- able action, they invited the Dean of the College and some of the Faculty and Trustees to meet with the Committee and examine the testimony. The Vice-President of the Board of Trustee^, one of the Trustees, and one of the Professors attended the meeting, and were, apparently, as unfavorably impressed by the statements presented as were the Committee. The Dean, from whom we most hoped for some explanation of such irregular action, did not meet the Committee, but replied by letter to the Chairman, and subsequently by another letter more fully sustaining the statements of the first, and inclosing one from X. denying that he had been privately examined by Prof. Beakley in Philadel- phia, and attributing his rejection by the Faculty in Philadel- phia to displeasure because of his previous acceptance here. Each of these letters is herewith presented, that the Society mav have the whole defense afforded the Committee. (See A, B. 0. and D.) It will be seen by these letters of the Dean that he fullv admits the fact of the graduation of two students, neither of whom attended his last course of lectures in this College, as re- quired by the express terms of the charter, and by the usage of all other medical colleges, both Homoeopathic and Allopathic. The only apology given for this act, is the statement that he was not aware, or had forgotten that the charter expiessly required that the last course of lectures shall be attended at the college conferring the degree, and that the same privilege had been granted another student the previous year with the approval of all the Faculty. To the charge that one of the students graduated by the New- York College had been previously examined and rejected bv the i) Faculty of the Philadelphia College, the Dean replies that the de- gree was conferred in New York the same evening that the Phila- delphia College balloted for their candidates, and consequently that the rejection was unknown to the Faculty of New York. This statement is sustained by the letter of X. who accounts for his rejection at Philadelphia by charging it to an unfriendly animus, because of his previous application to, and acceptance by, the Faculty here. On the contrary, the Registrar of the Philadelphia College distinctly affirms that the examination and rejection first occurred there, after which he came to New York and was graduated here. He further states that the examina- tion at Philadelphia took place on the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th days of March, and the vote by which X was rejected was taken on the 5th of that month, the day of the commencement of the College in New York ; and, further, that X was present and examined on those days, but was absent and in Ntiv York the last few days of February. By inquiry of the Faculty here, the Committee learn that the examinations in this city began on Thursday the 24th of February, and were closed three or four days before the Commencement on the :3th of March. If, then, X was in Philadelphia each of the four first days of March, and absent in New York City the few last days of February, as shown by the Registrar of the Philadelphia College, nis exam- nation here must have been during those last few days of Feb- ruary, and consequently was before and not after his rejection at Philadelphia. This explanation reconciles the conflicting state- ments of the two Colleges, and relieves that of New York from the principal charge against it, of graduating a student after ex- amination and rejection by a sister institution. The allegation of the two fellow-students of X, and sub- sequent graduates of the Philadelphia College, that Prof. Beakley went to that city soon alter the Christmas holidays, and privately examined said X in his room is distinctly and emphatically denied by Dr. Beakley, and contradicted by the letter of X, who is charged with having made the assertion to them in a conversation respecting his graduation. Your Com- mittee have no means of deciding this question of veracity be- tween these gentlemen, and must refer it to such judgment of the members present as their opinion of the character and truth- 6 fulness of the parties concerned may determine. In closing his letter to ihe Committee Dr. Beakley states that the diploma granted Y, the student who attended neither course of lectures at the New York College, had, at his direction, been returned : and assured the Chairman that it will not be again confened until the part} attends a full course of lectures at this College. The cases above cited were, it is understood, those upon which the charges of irregularity was based ; and the Committee have given their principal attention to the elucidation of the facts bearing upon them. The terms of the preambles and reso- lution, however, do not, in the opinion of the Committee, restrict their investigation to these instances. And they have, accord- ingly, felt it their duty to receive evidence in regard to other alleged cases brought to their notice during the investigation. Two other cases of alleged disregard of the usual require- ments for graduation have appeared to be of sufficient import- ance to be included in this report. It has been stated upon respectable authority, and confirmed by documents herewith pre- sented, that a student (Mr. Z., of New Jersey) received a diplo- ma at the recent Commencement, although he had not completed the prescribed term of study, and had attended but one course of lectures. This statement has not been denied, but it has been said, in explanation, that the diploma was given to Mr. Z. with the understanding that it should be returned and given up after the conclusion of the Commencement exercises, but which he has failed to do, although it has been demanded of him. Among the names of the graduates at the last Commence- ment, appears that of Calvin Cooper Bennett, of New Haven. The Committee are assured, upon what they deem reliable tes- timony, that he admits that he never attended lectures at this. or any medical college. At any rate, the advertisements in possession of the Committee, and herewith presented, exhibit him in a very unprofessional light, and as claiming to cure dis- eases by peculiar and extraordinary means, which he designates " Psychical Dynamization of the Cerebro-Spinalia." He is onlv known to the physicians of his neighborhood as an irregular practitioner, with a very dubious reputation for learning or morals. Owing to the late date at which these statements were received by the Committee, it has been impossible to inquire into the circumstances preceding and attending his graduation, or how far his admission as to his non-attendance upon lectures is true, or how far the College has been the victim of misplaced confidence: but the documents referred to indicate, in the opin- ion of the Committee, such professional obliquity as to render him utterly unworthy of such a distinction, and of the fellow- ship of reputable practitioners. In conclusion, the Committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions : (Signed) L. HALLOCK, H. D. PAINE. B. F. JOSLIN, Committee. Resolved, That the recent action of the New York Ho- moeopathic Medical College in admitting to graduation candi- dates who have not complied with the requirements of its char- ter and the regulations of all reputable medical colleges, is cal- culated to destroy confidence in its diplomas, is an injury to the cause of sound medical education, and merits the disapprobation of the profession. Resolved, That the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the County of New York earnestly request of the Faculty and offi- cers of the N. Y. Homoeopathic Medical College greater care hereafter to secure compliance with its charter obligations and a high standard of medical scholarship, as alike necessary for the respectability of the College and the reputation of the Homoeo- pathic profession. Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be for- warded to the Board of Trustees and Dean of the N. Y. Homceo- pathic Medical College." Dr. Kellogg rose to inquire of Prof. Hunt whether the Dr. C. C. Bennett, referred to by the Committee, had ever been ex- amined by the Faculty, or ever been in the College building. Prof. Hunt replied that he thought not. Dr. Gilbert opposed the adoption of the resolutions as cast- in«- a stigma on all the graduates of the College. 8 ' Dr. Goodwin, a graduate of the N. Y. Homoeopathic Medical College, was in favor of the resolutions, as tending to sustain the integrity of the diploma. Dr. Burdich advocated the resolutions, as several Alumni of the College had expressed a fear that if they were not passed, their diplomas would be depreciated in value. Dr. Throop, a graduate of the College, favored the resolu- tions. After further discussion by a number of members, the reso- lutions were unanimously adopted. (Signed) H. M. SMITH, M. D., Secretary Homoeopathic Medical Society, Co. of N. Y. " In compliance with the above resolution of the Society, I sent a copy of the resolutions to the Dean of the Faculty, and to the President of the Board of Trustees of the N. Y. Homoeo- pathic Medical College, and at the subsequent request of the Vice-President of the Board of Trustees, I sent him a copy of the Report of the Committee, with the documents attached thereto.' (Signed) H. M. SMITH, M. D., Secretary Homaopathic Medical Society, Co. of N. Y. The subsequent history of this affair will appear from the following extract from the Records of the Board of Trustees : "A meeting was held, pursuant to notice, of the Trustees ot the New Yrork Honneopathic Medical College, at Xo. 23 Broad- way, at 4 P. M., Wednesday, May 18. 1870. Present—Messrs. Wales, Marshall, Munu, Bissell, Frame, Wilder, Robinson, Walcott, Twombly, and E. Dwight—Mr. Wales. Vice-President. in the Chair. " A paper was presented containing a statement of Resolu- tions of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the County of New York in relation to certain degrees conferred bv this Col- lege, which are claimed to be irregular and unauthorized by the charter. Some accompanying papers were also read. " On motion of Mr. Marshall, it was 9 "Resolved, That the chairs of the Faculty of this College be now declared vacant, for the purpose of enabling this Board to accomplish a proper re-organization. '• On motion of Mr. Walcott, it was ■'Resolved, That a Committee of three be appointed to select a Faculty to be nominated to this Board. " Messrs. Marshall, Wilder, and Robinson were appointed such Committee, and on. motion the Vice-President was added. " Adjourned to meet one week from to-day, at 4 P. M." As a result of this action, the present Faculty of the College was nominated and elected. The only measures resorted to for the purpose of accomplishing this result, were the presentation of the Resolutions of the County Society to the Board of Trus- tees, and, when the latter requested it, the submission of the report of the Committee, Avith the documents referred to in the report. It is not necessary nor just to assume that the County Society or the Trustees of the College were influenced by un- wi >rthy motives, since the facts amply justify their action. Indeed, it is hardly possible to conceive that the Trustees could do other- wise than displace a Faculty charged with so many and so seri- ous irregularities, and which, with a partial exception, were not denied by the Dean. It is probable, too, that the Trustees were mindful of the aphorism so aptly quoted by the ex-Professors, •• Nemo fu.it repenle turpissimus," and concluded that, if the Faculty had done so badly in 1869-'70, they must, undoubtedly, have been almost as bad in former years; and that this was an additional reason for their dismissal. These extracts from official documents suffice to "place on record a truthful statement of the facts." It is not worth while to notice all the erroneous assertions of the ex-Professors. Every reader will comprehend that whoever brings to light the wrong- doing of one intrusted with power and thereby procures his dis- missal from a post of trust or honor, incurs, as a matter of course, the enmity of the disgraced wrong-doer; and should he chance to be appointed the wrong-doer's successor, his action can hardly fail to be ascribed to interested motives of self-aggrandizement. We shindy remark, with reference to the charge that "similar" violations of the charter were made " in 1870-71," that we know 10 of no such violations ; but, if any frauds have been practiced on us, leading to violations of the charter, we ask that the evidence may be laid before the Faculty and the Board of Trustees : and, if it can be shown that we connived at or consented to any irregular proceeding, we should deem it just that the Board dis- place us as it did our predecessors. The meeting of the Board of Trustees, at which the former Faculty were displaced, was a regularly called meeting, held at a place and an hour convenient for a large majority of the Board. and was largely attended, as the record shows. No member re- tired from the meeting " indignantly" (or blandly); no member of the Board resigned his position until April 24th, 1871. one year after the dismissal, and in no resignation was any reason assigned which expressed any disapprobation of the action of the Board. The entire Board continued to administer the affairs of the College in harmony for a year after the new Faculty were elected ; and the resignations which occurred in April and May, 1871, were based upon " inability to attend the meeting,'" and " lack of time to properly discharge the duties." Mr. William Cullen Bryant, President of the Board, took an active part in the transactions of the Board during the winter of 1870-71. He was present at the meeting of February 25th, 1871, and ex- pressed great satisfaction with the Dean's report of th? history of the College for the year which had expired, and of its pros- pects for the coming year. Although it is not improbable that the weight of advancing years, and the pressure of literary work, may soon compel him to relinquish his connection with the Col- lege, he has not yet done so, but is still our honored President. In reply to the appendix of the ex-Professors' pamphlet, which claims that the College is indebted to Dr. Beaklev we content ourselves with a quotation from the report of Mr. Twombly, Treasurer of the Board of Trustees, which was pre- sented April 18th, 1871 : " I have examined such of the accounts and vouchers as have been handed over to the Dean by the former Dean, Dr. J. Beakley, and heartily concur in the con- clusions reached by the Dean in the very thorough examination he has made of these accounts, and which are embodied in his report herewith submitted." These conclusions are as follows : 11 ■■ Dr. Beakley claims to be reimbursed for advances made to the College to meet its current expenses. But the College is not in his debt. For his own books show that, over and above all moneys expended in behalf of the College and accounted for, he has received a sum nearly equal to three times his claim; and this sum he has, by his own records, without authority or right, appropriated to other uses than paying the current expenses of the College, dividing it among the Professors as if it had been a surplus. Moreover, he still retains (without the consent of the College) notes given by students to the College for tuition fees, the face value of which exceeds his claim." The Finance Committee of the Faculty (Professors Morgan and Liebold), to whom was referred the report of the Dean upon Dr. Beakley's accounts, state their conclusions as follows in their report to the Board of Trustees : " Your Committee recommend the rejection in toto of the so- called account-books of Dr. Beakley, and also that he be held strictly responsible for all College funds and securities which have been received by him during his entire administration, and that he be required to furnish vouchers or satisfactory evidence accounting for the proper disposal of the same." In conclusion, we must express our regret at the necessity laid upon us of publishing this statement, the burden and odium of which rests with the ex-Professors who compelled it by their gratuitous and untruthful pamphlet. For the New York Homoeopathic \ Medical College. J CARROLL DUNHAM, M. D., Dean. HENRY D. PAINE, M. D., Secretary. J. W. DOWLINC, M. D., Registrar. p. s.—Since writing the above, we are informed that Dr. F. W. Hunt denies all knowledge of the pamphlet of the ex- Professors. And Professor Charles Avery, under date June 12 15th, 1871, writes: "At the Philadelphia meeting I was also made to complain to the " Homoeopathic Profession of the United States " of ill-treatment by certain members of the medical pro- fession of the City of New York. In both cases my name is used without my knowledge or consent. The object of this note is to correct any wrong impression you may have on this sub- ject." J NLM001036550