GIFT OF 
 
Qihy Students of medicine 
 Should Select the 
 fiomceopatbic School 
 
 "Che prize Gssay in the Medical Century Competition and 
 the Bssays obtaining Second and Chird places* 
 
 Copyright 1904 by The Medical Century Co. 
 
"By Homoeopathic medical education is im- 
 plied the mental habit of thinking in Homoeopathic 
 language, the sine qua non for successful practice." 
 
 4 'If any prospective medical student desires to 
 practice tomorrow what he learns in the colleges 
 today he must be trained and educated in a Homoe- 
 opathic school." 
 
 "Our colleges are under the supervision of the 
 Intercollegiate Committee of our national organiza- 
 tion, the American Institute of Homoeopathy, and 
 in them is taught all that pertains, to the great field 
 of medical learning and, in addition thereto, Homoe- 
 opathic medicine. " 
 
WHY STUDENTS OF MEDICINE SHOULD SELECT THE 
 HOMOEOPATHIC SCHOOL. 
 
 BY THOMAS G. M^CONKEY, M. D., SAN FRANCISCO. CAL. 
 
 Every year over 5,000 young men and women 
 decide upon medicine as a career. Among these 
 there must be many who are undecided which school 
 to select, with which to become identified, and who 
 will be grateful for any suggestions that may aid 
 them in making a decision. 
 
 This essay is written to present some of the 
 reasons why the decision should be for the homoeo- 
 pathic school. It seems also fitting to speak of the 
 importance of taking the medical course at the col- 
 lege avowedly teaching the homoeopathic system; 
 for it is well known that there are many students 
 who believe in the doctrine, yet take their medical 
 course in one of the old school colleges. Mere ac- 
 cessibility accounts for this in most cases, but this 
 is of small moment when compared with the im- 
 perative necessity of a homoeopathic medical educa- 
 tion. By homoeopathic medical education is im- 
 plied the mental habit of thinking in homoeopathic 
 language, the sine qua nan for successful practice. 
 The fact that some of the most illustrious members 
 of the school have been graduates of old school col- 
 leges does not militate against the foregoing. They 
 became worthy disciples of Hahnemann in spite of 
 their allopathic teaching rather than because of it. 
 
 Fifty years ago there were but two homoeo- 
 pathic colleges, and these with limited facilities 
 and no prestige. Today there are twenty, each 
 of a high standard, furnishing better facilities 
 for obtaining a general medical education than 
 the average old school college. There are probably 
 few if any allopathic schools with superior re- 
 sources and stronger faculties than have our ho- 
 moeopathic colleges. The American Institute of Ho- 
 moeopathy, which, since its organization in 1844, has 
 exercised a singularly judicious control of homoeo- 
 pathic interests, and itself has grown from a mem- 
 bership of forty to more than two thousand, is 
 
 374417 
 
supreme in authority, especially in the matter of 
 medical education. It was the pioneer in the move- 
 ment for a four years' medical course, and for a high 
 educational standard in the entrance and graduation 
 requirements. The statement that the standard and 
 teaching is of a higher average order than in the 123 
 allopathic schools is well within the truth. These 
 twenty colleges are well distributed from Boston to 
 San Francisco, and are, therefore, easily accessible. 
 In addition there are in the United States eighty- 
 four general hospitals, sixty-one private hospitals, 
 fifty-eight sanatoriums, fifty-six dispensaries, all 
 avowedly homoeopathic, and sixty-six other institu- 
 tions, State, municipal, etc., wherein homoeopathic 
 treatment is employed. Many of these 325 institu- 
 tions, especially the general hospitals, require resident 
 physicians or internes who are naturally chosen from 
 the graduating classes of the homoeopathic colleges. 
 The motto of the new eductaion, "We learn things 
 by doing them," is observed in a medical course by 
 the opportunities for clinical practice by the student. 
 The smaller classes, besides ensuring a much closer 
 personal contact with the professors on the part of the 
 student, increase not only the chances for individual 
 preferment during the course, but for hospital and 
 other appointments on graduation. 
 
 While the commercial spirit is not compatible with 
 the sacred and philanthropic character of the medi- 
 cal calling, it is not only proper for the student 
 to consider the bread and butter aspect of the ques- 
 tion but his duty as well. If the field is al- 
 ready overcrowded, he owes it to himself, as" well 
 as to those in it, to choose some other calling. To 
 the question : Is the medical profession overcrowded ? 
 there can be but one answer. If we take the total of 
 all schools there is a great surplusage of graduates 
 every year. As a consequence, many are obliged to 
 abandon the practice in spite of the great expendi- 
 ture of time and money in fitting themselves for it. 
 Many others with an income less, and more pre- 
 carious than that of a skilled workman in almost any 
 industry, eke out an unsatisfactory existence. This 
 is especially true in the cities. But in spite of this 
 recognized excess of physicians of all schools, there 
 seems to be an actual dearth of homoeopathic physi- 
 cians. It was of sufficient importance to be taken up 
 
by the American Institute of Homoeopathy at the 
 Cleveland meeting in June, 1902. The following 
 quotation from the Transactions is pertinent : 
 
 "The demand for homoeopathic physicians 
 throughout the United States far exceeds the supply. 
 Thousands of small cities, towns and villages are un- 
 able to secure the advantages afforded by the 
 homoeopathic system of medical practice. Demands 
 for graduates of this school of medicine are con- 
 stantly reaching our twenty medical colleges. The 
 demands for physicians come from every State in 
 the Union. Especially is this true of the Southern 
 and Southwestern States, into which thousands of 
 people in quest of pleasure, health and business are 
 going every year. The American Institute of Homoe- 
 opathy, mindful of her obligation to the public, not 
 only calls attention to this public need, but also to 
 the fact that there are twenty medical colleges in 
 the United States, thoroughly equipped effectively 
 to teach all branches of medicine and the science and 
 practice of Homoeopathy. These colleges earnestly 
 solicit and will welcome young men and women of 
 good, moral, physical and mental endowment, pos- 
 sessing a high school education, or its equivalent, 
 with an elementary knowledge of Latin. Those who 
 come from districts having but few homoeopathic 
 physicians will be especially welcome." 
 
 In view of the general impression of the over- 
 crowded condition of the medical profession, this 
 appeal will come as a surprise to most people. But 
 a little reflection will explain this seeming anomaly. 
 There are in round numbers 125,000 practicing phy- 
 sicians in the United States, according to Folk's 
 Register. Estimating the population at 80,000,000, 
 this gives one physician to 640 people. Of this 125,- 
 ooo about 15,000 are of the homoeopathic school, or 
 one to 5,333 people. In some communities where 
 Homoeopathy has been adequately represented it is 
 not unusual to find fifty per cent, of the population 
 patrons of Homoeopathy. And what is very signifi- 
 cant there will be a larger proportion of the edu- 
 cated, travelled and moneyed classes among these. 
 This is a matter of observation only, but it is prob- 
 ably a conservative statement of the case. 
 
 In 1901 there were 230 graduates from the 
 homoeopathic colleges. This number is not ade- 
 
quate to make up the loss by death and retirement 
 from various causes among the 15,000 practitioners. 
 Recalling the fact that there are thousands of com- 
 munities in the country, especially in the South and 
 West, that is virgin soil, as far as Homoeopathy is 
 concerned, the official appeal quoted should not 
 occasion surprise. Let no one suppose that this ap- 
 peal was prompted by any feeling that Homoeopathy 
 is on the decline. It has an aggravating way of 
 disappointing its enemies in this respect. During its 
 century of existence it has been the unwilling but 
 imperturbed patient of learned doctors, pronounc- 
 ing audibly the gravest prognoses, times without 
 number ; and yet never before has its influence been 
 so potent or the attitude of its enemies so respectful. 
 What is to be feared is a partial acceptance of the 
 doctrine resulting from a superficial study and a 
 desire to engraft it on old school therapeutics. There 
 is a hygienic use of medicine and a palliative use of 
 medicine that is perfectly compatible with the 
 homoeopathic curative use of medicine. But so-call- 
 ed "rational therapeutics" and homoeopathic thera- 
 peutics are not compatible. He who attempts to 
 combine them betrays at once his unacquaintance 
 with the spirit of the homoeopathic doctrine. An 
 authority in the school in materia medica and 
 therapeutics has said: "The college must take the 
 lead in presenting Homoeopathy, like any other 
 natural science, as a series of independent doctrines, 
 as a philosophy. I deem it more important that the 
 student should be thoroughly grounded in the under- 
 lying principles than in acquiring a stock of key- 
 note symptoms, important and essential as this is." 
 
 It will be interesting and profitable to critically 
 examine some of these underlying principles enunci- 
 ated by Hahnemann in the light of our present knowl- 
 edge. First a few words concerning Hahne- 
 mann and his medical environment. He was a regu- 
 larly educated physician of great learning and very 
 uncommon general culture and literary attainments. 
 Sir John Forbes, one of his old school critics, said 
 of him in 1846, three years after Hahnemann's 
 death ; when the opposition to Homoeopathy was 
 most bitter: 
 
 "No candid observer of his actions, or candid 
 reader of his writings, can hesitate for a moment to 
 
admit that he was a very extraordinary man, one 
 whose name will descend to posterity as the exclu- 
 sive founder of an original system of medicine, as 
 ingenious as many that preceded it, and destined, 
 probably, to be the remote, if not the immediate, 
 cause of more important fundamental changes in 
 the practice of the healing art than have resulted 
 from any promulgated since the days of Galen him- 
 self. He was undoubtedly a man of genius and a 
 scholar, a man of indefatigable industry and daunt- 
 less energy/' 
 
 Hufeland, the Nestor of orthodox medicine in Ger- 
 many, spoke of him in 1801 as "one of the most dis- 
 tinguished physicians in Germany." Jean Paul 
 Richter, a contemporary, speaks thus : "Hahnemann, 
 that rare combination of philosophy and learning, 
 whose system must eventually bring about the ruin 
 of the ordinary receipt-crammed heads, but is still 
 little accepted by practitioners, and rather shunned 
 than investigated." 
 
 Hahnemann by general consent had attained a po- 
 sition in the profession which entitled him to criticise 
 prevailing methods. While realizing that prevailing 
 methods in general did more harm than good, he was 
 impressed with the fact that there were certain reme- 
 dies used in certain diseases with such results as left 
 no room for doubt that in these cases at least real 
 cures were effected. This he observed in the use of 
 mercury in syphilis and Peruvian bark in malaria, or 
 "marsh fever," as it was then called. Hahnemann, 
 like Bacon and Boyle and Sydenham before him, 
 realized the immense importance of increasing the 
 number of these "specifics." A casual observation 
 in Cullen's Materia Medica, which he was translat- 
 ing, gave him the clue to his discovery as the falling 
 apple did to Newton. From this observation it oc- 
 curred to him that provings of drugs upon healthy 
 persons might furnish a knowledge of their specific 
 properties ; and that the administration of drugs in 
 cases presenting symptoms similar to those the drug 
 produces in the healthy subject might be the law of 
 the application of specifics. His hopes of rendering 
 the medical art more simple and certain were raised, 
 and he set himself with "his dauntless energy and 
 indefatigable industry" to collect from the writings 
 of ancient and modern medical authors all the in- 
 
stances bearing upon the subject, and to verify by 
 instituting experiments first upon himself and then 
 upon other healthy persons whom he could per- 
 suade to join him in these self-sacrificing labors. 
 The further he advanced in such investigations and 
 inquiries the more he became satisfied of the exten- 
 sive application of his therapeutic law. 
 
 From 1790 to 1805, fifteen years of the prime of 
 his life, were devoted to constant, exhausting labors 
 of this nature, "for when we have to do with an art 
 whose end is the saving of human life any neglect 
 to make ourselves master of it is a crime." Actuated 
 by that noble sentiment, sure of the truth of the 
 great principle he had discovered with all the in- 
 cidental testimony of history to support it with 
 the positive results of a long experience to confirm 
 it, he presented his views and the results of his 
 labors to the profession in an essay of wonderful 
 logical power, of the utmost moderation in expres- 
 sion, full of almost tender persuasion, and of the 
 noblest enthusiasm. 
 
 The treatment of Hahnemann by his colleagues 
 for attempting to give certainty and precision to 
 therapeutics forms a melancholy chapter in the his- 
 tory of medicine, but it does not stand alone. Harvey 
 was denounced as a quack and even held to be 
 demented because he demonstrated the circulation 
 of the blood. His book announcing his discovery 
 was unable to pass censorship in England, and, 
 therefore, appeared in a foreign country. Syden- 
 ham also was calumniated for efforts to improve 
 the medical art. Hahnemann's teaching was even 
 more revolutionary than either Harvey's or Syden- 
 ham's, for its success meant the annihilation of all 
 the cherished methods of traditional medicine. He 
 begged his colleagues to investigate it, and if it 
 were found better than the old method to use it for 
 the good of mankind and to give God the glory. 
 Instead, they called him an impostor and attacked 
 his. character and his motives. 
 
 Time has shown that Hahnemann was right in 
 his condemnation of the practices in vogue in his 
 time, for they have all been abandoned or are in pro- 
 cess of abandonment. Up till the year 1840, seldom 
 did an anti-homoeopathic work appear which did not 
 violently reproach Homoeopathy for its rejection of 
 
blood-letting. But let an old school authority bear 
 witness to the influence of Hahnemann in reforming 
 medicine. In 1899 there appeared a pamphlet under 
 the imprint of the American Medical Association 
 which was sent broadcast over the country with the 
 evident purpose of dealing the "solar plexus" blow to 
 Homoeopathy. It attacks the personal honesty of 
 Hahnemann and his followers, but surprising as it 
 may appear this sentence occurs : "Homoeopathy has 
 done a noble work ; it has served its purpose well. 
 Look back a hundred years to the time of its birth, 
 and contrast the methods of practice then in vogue 
 with those which are in favor today, and tell me 
 whether a stupendous revolution has not been 
 wrought, and largely through the instrumentality 
 of Samuel Hahnemann." Evidently the value of the 
 pamphlet as an anti-homoeopathic document with 
 such a sweeping concession lies in the implied in- 
 ference that Homoeopathy as a medical system is a 
 "has been." 
 
 Dr. William Osier, who wrote the article on "Med- 
 icine" in the New York Sun's series on the TQth 
 century's progress in great subjects, says : "The 
 century has witnessed a revolution in the treatment 
 of disease and the growth of a new school of medi- 
 cine. The old schools, regular and homoeopathic, 
 put their trust in drugs, to give which was the 
 alpha and omega of their practice. For every v nip- 
 torn there was a score of medicines vile, nauseous 
 compounds in one case ; bland, harmless dilutions in 
 the other. The new school has a firm faith in a few 
 good, well-tried drugs; little or none in the great 
 mass of medicine still in general "use." In the same 
 article he attributes "above all to the valuable lesson 
 of Homoeopathy, the progress in the battle against 
 polypharmacy or the use of a large number of drugs 
 (of the action of which we know little, yet we put 
 them into bodies of the action of which we know 
 less)." Hahnemann in 1797 wrote: "Is it well to 
 mix various drugs in a single prescription, to admin- 
 ister baths, clysters, bleeding, blistering, fomentations 
 and inunctions all at once or in rapid succession, if 
 we* wish to raise therapeutics to perfection, effect 
 cures, and know with certainty in every case what 
 the remedy has done in order to employ it in similar 
 cases with still greater or at least with equal sue- 
 
cess ? How can we complain of the intricacy of our 
 art when we ourselves render it obscure and intri- 
 cate? I, too, at one time suffered from this in- 
 firmity; the schools had infected me. This miasma 
 clung to me, before it came to a crisis, more obsti- 
 nately than the miasma of any other mental 
 malady." This miasma has clung to medicine also 
 more obstinately than some of the other mental 
 maladies, for, as Dr. Osier says, that battle "has not 
 been fought to a finish." The following from an 
 editorial on Mono- and Polypharmacy in the Phila- 
 delphia Medical Journal of January 10, 1903, is a 
 hopeful sign of the present trend: "Many modern 
 physicians have fallen into the habit of prescribing a 
 single drug and depending upon it, in combination 
 with various hygienic and dietetic regulations. Pre- 
 scriptions of single drugs, unfortunately, unless 
 combined with various diluents, are not imposing; 
 but this is a matter too small, really, for considera- 
 tion. A great advantage of monopharmacy if we 
 can so term it is that the physician learns through 
 his own experience (and this is practically the only 
 way he can learn) to use drugs with accuracy and 
 success." It will require many years* yet before the 
 old school abandons polypharmacy, but that it will, 
 eventually, seems certain. Hahnemann in the pre- 
 face to his Materia Medica Pura said : "The day of 
 the true knowledge of medicines and the healing 
 art will dawn when physicians shall trust the cure 
 of complete cases of disease to a simple medicinal 
 substance and, when, regardless of traditional sys- 
 tems, they will employ for the extinction and cure - 
 of a case of disease whose symptoms they have in- 
 vestigated one single medicinal substance whose 
 positive effects they have ascertained which can show 
 among these effects a group of symptoms very simi- 
 lar to those presented by the case of disease." The 
 dominant school has ignored this teaching of Hahne- 
 mann arid sought to develop a science of thera- 
 peutics along other lines, and with what results? 
 Osier has already been quoted. Here is Goodhart in 
 the annual address on medicine before the 1901 meet- 
 ing of the British Medical Association : 
 
 "Why do we give drugs? Often not because the 
 disease demands them, but because the patient is not 
 happy until he gets them ; too often he is not happy 
 
 8 % 
 
then. They are sometimes given to hide our ignor- 
 ance, I fear, or to mark time while we watch and 
 wait. They are sometimes given as a gambler on the 
 Exchange speculates in futures, an enhanced reputa- 
 tion being the windfall that is hoped to secure ; and 
 then we often give drugs as an experiment in the 
 hope that they may do good." Much more might be 
 quoted from these and others very high in the coun- 
 cils of the old school pointing to the futility of giv- 
 ing drugs to cure disease and the chaos of "rational" 
 therapeutics. It is not surprising that "one of the 
 most striking characteristics of the modern treat- 
 ment of disease is the return to what used to be call- 
 ed the natural methods, diet, exercising, bathing 
 and massage," as Dr. Oskr tells us. 
 
 So skeptical are the followers of "rational" thera- 
 peutics of the curative value of drugs that they 
 regard the confidence of the homoeopathic school in 
 drugs as a case of self-deception. They would at- 
 tribute the favorable results to the vis medicatrix 
 nature?, which the "bland and harmless dilutions" 
 did not inhibit. Dr. Osier says : "Nobody has ever 
 claimed that the mortality among homoeopathic 
 practitioners was greater than among those of the 
 regular school." Dr. Osier was evidently a little 
 careless in his tenses when he wrote that sentence. 
 He doubtless meant to say that "Nobody today 
 claims," etc., instead of "has ever claimed," etc. Sir 
 James Y. Simpson, in 1853, published a book of 
 nearly 300 pages with the title "Homoeopathy ; Its 
 Tenets and Tendencies." The final paragraph reads 
 thus : "At the same time there remains behind a far 
 more serious and solemn view of this discreditable 
 medical charlatanry. For, in relation to the question 
 of Homoeopathy and infinitesmal doses as actually 
 applied in practice, no one conversant with disease 
 can shut his eyes to the dangers of the system, in the 
 way of omission if not of commission, dangers which 
 were lately stated in the following forcible terms by 
 Dr. Williams, a gentleman acknowledged on all 
 hands to be standing in the foremost rank of the 
 London physicians of the present day: 'You see' 
 (says Dr. Williams) 'all sorts of quackery, with Ho- 
 moeopathy foremost, rampant through the land, de- 
 luding by its unaccountable infatuations, the power- 
 ful, the learned, the rich, and, worse than all, the 
 
poor, in multitudes; and not only are riches placed 
 at the command of the instruments of these fallacies, 
 but what are far more precious, and this is far more 
 terrible to contemplate the lives of our fellow 
 creatures. In fact, there is at this moment through- 
 out this country an awful system of trafficking or 
 gambling with the issues of life and death, a perilous 
 tampering with the elements of mortality; nay, a 
 jeopardizing, not of the body only, but even of the 
 soul. For who can say where victims are hurried 
 out of the world by a delusion, and for want of 
 proper treatment, who can say that some of such 
 might not have been saved alive and given time for 
 repentance as well as recovery? It is altogether an 
 awful consideration, and I quite shudder when I look 
 back at the number of melancholy cases which have 
 come to my knowledge, where, at the eleventh hour, 
 the regular practitioner has been called in when too 
 late ; when the precious time, in which medicine 
 might have availed, has been wasted with Ho- 
 moeopathy ; and we could only shake our heads, and 
 lift up our hands, and exclaim, Alas ! what folly ! and 
 I fear we might add, what knavery, too !' '' 
 
 This needs no comment. Its mere use in this 
 essay is the most eloquent commentary that could be 
 offered of the changed conditions which fifty years 
 have brought about. Fifty years hence wlien Ho- 
 moeopathy will be dominant it will excite surprise 
 that Dr. Osier should not have known of the posi- 
 tive value of Homoeopathy, at the beginning of the 
 century, just as we are surprised that Sir James Y. 
 Simpson should not even see a negative value in it. 
 If Homoeopathy had been the "disreputable medical 
 charlatanry" that Sir James declared it to be, can any 
 one believe it would have survived through the cen- 
 tury? Even if it had been a reaction against the 
 prevalent methods of the time, would it not have 
 ceased to exist when these had been reformed? 
 There is only one adequate explanation for the con- 
 tinued vigorous growth of Homoeopathy, and that 
 was enunciated by Hahnemann himself in these 
 words : "Homoeopathy is a simple art of healing, 
 unvarying in its principles and its methods of apply- 
 ing them. The principles upon which it is based, if 
 thoroughly understood, will be found to .be perfect 
 and unassailable." 
 
 10 
 
Let us examine some of these principles as laid 
 down by Hahnemann. "What life is can only be 
 known empirically from its phenomena and mani- 
 festations, but no conception of it can be formed by 
 any metaphysical speculation a priori; what life is 
 in its actual essential nature can never be ascer- 
 tained or even guessed at by mortals." In spite of the 
 enormous increase of our knowledge of organs, 
 tissues, cells, nuclei and protoplasm since that was 
 written, it still remains true. We know that every 
 cell is from a cell, and every nucleus from a 
 nucleus, and that protoplasm is the physical basis 
 of life, but of the actual essential nature of that life 
 we are still ignorant. 
 
 'To the explanation of human life, as also its two- 
 fold conditions, health and disease, the principles by 
 which we explain other phenomena are quite inap- 
 plicable. The material substances of which the hu- 
 man organism is composed no longer follow, in this 
 vital combination, the laws to which material sub- 
 stances in the inanimate condition are subject; they 
 are regulated by the laws peculiar to vitality alone, 
 they are themselves animated and vitalized." How 
 prophetic of our present knowledge of the living 
 cell ! And this was written in 1813, twenty-six years 
 before Schwann proposed his cell theory of animal 
 tissues. Today all physiology as well as all pa- 
 thology is merely a study of cellular activities. 
 
 "Now, as the condition of the organism and its 
 health depend solely on the health of the life which 
 animates it, in like manner it follows that the 
 altered health, which we term disease, consists in a 
 condition altered originally only in its vital sensi- 
 bilities and functions, irrespective of all chemical or 
 mechanical considerations; in short, it must consist 
 in a dynamically altered condition, a changed mode 
 of being, whereby a change in the properties of the 
 material component parts of the body is afterward 
 effected." Starting from purely material concep- 
 tions, Hahnemann gradually arrived at dynamic 
 views, though the general current ran in the con- 
 trary direction at the time. "We must localize dis- 
 eases," that is, look for their seat, ran the general 
 current, and we owe much to it, for modern pa- 
 thology had its beginning in this effort, the beginning 
 of French positivism in medicine. Hahnemann re- 
 
 II 
 
garded these morbid changes as the effects or re- 
 sults of the disease. 
 
 "Diseases must be considered as dynamic de- 
 rangements of the vital character of our organism; 
 they must therefore be cured by agents capable of 
 causing dynamic change." 
 
 vSir Andrew Clark, before the Clinical Society of 
 London, said : "The structural change is not dis- 
 ease ; it is not coextensive with disease, and even in 
 those cases where the alliance appears the closest 
 the statical or anatomical relation is but one of other 
 effects of physiological forces, which, acting under 
 unphysiological conditions, constitute by this 
 new departure the essential and true disease. For 
 disease in its primary condition and intimate nature 
 is in strict language dynamic ; it precedes, underlies, 
 evolves, determines, embraces, transcends and rules 
 the anatomical state. * * - * But always behind 
 the statical lies the dynamic condition. He could 
 hardly have been more explicit in affirming Hahne- 
 mann's teaching if that had been his purpose. 
 
 The following from the London Lancet, of Feb- 
 ruary 24, 1900, is pertinent also, as showing that 
 Hahnemann's views at the beginning of the nine- 
 teenth century are really the accepted doctrines of 
 the medical profession at the beginning of the 
 twentieth century. "That the physician has to study 
 not disease, per se, but the diseased man, is a truth 
 which took us some twenty-two centuries to learn, 
 but which Aristotle knew some 350 years B. C. 
 Until fifty or sixty years ago, disease was regarded 
 as an entity distinct from the body, to be expelled 
 from it by drugs, like a tapeworm, whereas we now 
 regard it as a state affecting the entire man, body 
 and mind, structure and function, so that it would be 
 more correct to "say that he is the disease than that 
 he has 'got' it, and as this state varies with the con- 
 stitution, inherited tendencies, antecedents and sur- 
 roundings of the man, it requires a corresponding 
 variety of treatment. The wise physician adapts his 
 treatment to each patient's peculiarities ; to one he 
 may give a certain drug, to another with the same 
 disease a different one," etc. 
 
 This is distinctly homoeopathic in thought and lan- 
 guage. Hahnemann deserves the credit of having 
 insisted upon the strictest individualization, he 
 
 12 
 
taught it systematically in his numerous works. 
 "Totality of the symptoms" or individualization of 
 the disease is one of the essential tenets of Ho- 
 moeopathy. Today the real teachers in medicine are 
 seeing disease as Hahnemann saw it. Vierordt, in 
 his Medical Diagnosis, says: "The objective point 
 of the physician's investigations at the bedside is 
 therefore an individual diagnosis ; first, on purely 
 scientific grounds, but still more important from the 
 practical consideration that it must form the indis- 
 pensable basis for individualizing the treatment. 
 * * For example, it is positively asserted that 
 the exciting cause of a lung disease is the tubercle 
 bacillus, but this says nothing of the disease, tuber- 
 culous phthisis, which is present. In order to dis- 
 cover this the patient must be examined. * * * 
 But nowadays it suffices for many, unfortunately, to 
 find the bacilli in the sputum. * * * The indi- 
 vidual diagnosis can never be made at the study 
 table, but only and always at the bedside, and there 
 by a sort of artistic construction of the complete pic- 
 ture of the disease out of its collective phenomena, 
 anatomical and functional." "We must individualize 
 the case." And this also from the preface : "And then 
 a study of the whole organism, the totality of the 
 picture of the disease." The phraseology suggests 
 that he had been reading Hahnemann. 
 
 "Now because diseases are only dynamic derange- 
 ments of our health and vital character they cannot 
 be removed by man otherwise than by means of 
 agents and powers, which are also capable of pro- 
 ducing dynamical derangements of the human 
 health ; that is to say, diseases are cured virtually 
 and dynamically by medicines." Thus. Hahnemann 
 clearly states the corollary to the dynamic theory 
 of disease. If any Sir Andrew Clark has affirmed 
 this it has not come under my notice. The nearest 
 approach to it that I have seen is a paper by Dr. 
 Baradat before the British Tuberculosis Congress, 
 July, 1901, on the use of natural goat serum in the 
 treatment of tuberculosis. "The use of natural 
 serum has given me unexpected results. Natural 
 serum seems to fulfill all the required conditions, 
 for it is both dynamic and bactericidal. We find 
 that a very small quantity produces an intense thera- 
 peutic effect. There is here a quid divivum due 
 
 13 
 
evidently to the intimate composition of natural 
 serum. No one nowadays denies the dynamo- 
 genetic action of serum it is a recognized fact. 
 Whilst awaiting experiments destined to throw light 
 on the obscure question of the mode of action of 
 serums, we give preference to the theory pro- 
 pounded by Metchnikoff, who looks upon them not 
 as antitoxic, but as stimulating agents of phagocy- 
 tosis; in other words, as stimulants, provokers of 
 organic resistance." 
 
 Serum therapy, or medication by curative or pro- 
 tective serums, is a new art in the healing of disease 
 of which much is hoped. Is it consistent with Ho- 
 moeopathy? Dr. Baradat told us that it is dynamic 
 in its action. Hahnemann told us that this is the 
 only way diseases are cured. The word "dynamic" 
 as applied to a remedy is very new in the literature 
 of "rational therapeutics." These "anti-toxins" (a 
 misnomer, suggested evidently by a materialistic 
 conception of their action) are obtained from men 
 or animals sick with a similar disease. That does 
 not sound entirely inconsistent with Homoeopathy. 
 It is surely more in accord with similia similibus 
 than contraria contrariis. If then remedies may be 
 curative in bacterial diseases, not because of any 
 antiseptic or anti-toxic quality, but because of their 
 dynamic action, the germ theory of disease so far 
 from being subversive of Homoeopathy is actually 
 confirmatory. Hahnemann anticipated the germ 
 origin of at least one disease, for he says, literally: 
 "On board ships in whose confined spaces, filled 
 with mouldy, watery vapors, the cholera miasm, 
 finds a favorable element for its multiplication, and 
 grows into an enormously increased brood of those 
 excessively minute invisible, living creatures, so in- 
 imical to human life, of which the contagious mat- 
 ter of the cholera most probably consists." Notwith- 
 standing this conception of the exciting cause of the 
 disease, after reading a description of the symptoms, 
 he predicted the remedies for the various stages. 
 These were used with such brilliant results that it 
 forms one of the most gratifying incidents in the 
 history of Homoeopathy. One effect was the re- 
 pealing of the law prohibiting the practice of Ho- 
 moeopathy in Austria. 
 
 "As little as we mortals understand the economy 
 
 14 
 
of healthy life, and as surely as it must ever be hid- 
 den from us, so impossible it will ever be for us to 
 understand the internal processes of disturbed life 
 in diseases. The internal process of diseases is only 
 manifested by those observable changes, complaints 
 and symptoms through which alone life expresses 
 its inner disturbances, so that in every case we must 
 remain unable to determine which of the morbid 
 symptoms are primary effects of the morbific agency, 
 or which are to be considered as the reaction of vital 
 force in its spontaneous curative efforts." This was 
 written by Hahnemann in 1813. To antagonize 
 symptoms has been, and is, the practice of the self- 
 styled "rational" school of therapeutics. Happily 
 for humanity they are beginning to understand that 
 many of the morbid symptoms in disease "are to be 
 considered as the reaction of vital force in its spon- 
 taneous curative efforts." For example, we now 
 know inflammation to be a conservative process, 
 "the response of living tissue to injury." The four 
 classical symptoms dolor, calor, rubor, tumor 
 have a new reading today, and for this we are in- 
 debted to many investigators, but especially to 
 Metchnikoff. As Dr. Andrew Wilson conservative- 
 ly puts it: "Inflammation is thus to be ranked, not 
 so much as an unnatural process, but as one which 
 has a true physiological significance, in that it be- 
 gins at least, in an endeavor on the part of the leu- 
 cocytes, to save us from the consequences of infec- 
 tion." 
 
 Enlightened physicians are beginning to see that 
 fever is something that is not always to be an- 
 tagonized. Bouchard,, of France, recently said: 
 "There is a certain school of medicine that sees 
 nothing in fever, but fever; with doctors of this 
 class the thermometer is the source of all therapeu- 
 tic indications ; they see improvement only in lower- 
 ing the temperature. No clinical practitioner can ac- 
 cept such a doctrine, and the audacity of the asser- 
 tions of the school in question has given rise to a re- 
 action in the opposite direction, in Germany as well 
 as in France. Thus we now see the current of med- 
 ical opinion take a new course. It is now urged that 
 fever may do some good; that it should be treated 
 with respect a theory that has long been unheard 
 of in the medical world. We may say, therefore, 
 
 15 
 
that it indicates the gravity of the disease, but does 
 not cause it. Elevation of the temperature an- 
 nounces, but does not constitute the danger." 
 
 Friedlander goes farther and suggests the em- 
 ployment of artificial fever as a therapeutic measure 
 on the ground that it represents a natural process, 
 which serves the purpose of immunizing and elimi- 
 nating pathological materials, like bacterial prod- 
 ucts, etc. He was able to show an increase of the 
 leucocytes up to 25 per cent, after intense heat in- 
 fluences in moist media, like hot 'baths, steam baths, 
 etc. If then such important disease processes as 
 fever and inflammation are to be considered as a 
 "reaction of vital force in its spontaneous curative 
 efforts" Hahnemann's teaching, that prescribing for 
 single symptoms on the principle of contraries, is 
 "contrary to nature" receives striking confirmation. 
 Homoeopathy has been willfully, or ignorantly, 
 represented as ignoring causes. In the American 
 Medical Association pamphlet already quoted from, 
 this inference, "Hence, you see, it is not necessary 
 to remove causes, nor even to know their nature," 
 pretends to be a logical one from a study of Hahne- 
 mann's writings. On the other hand, read para- 
 graph 7 of the Organon: "In a disease presenting 
 no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa 
 occasionalis) for removal, [in a note on this 
 Hahnemann says: "As a matter of course every 
 sensible physician will remove such causes at first, 
 after which the illness will generally subside of its 
 own accord."] nothing is to be discerned but 
 symptoms. These alone (with due regard to the 
 possible existence of some miasm, and to accessory 
 circumstances) must constitute the medium through 
 which the disease demands and points out its cura- 
 tive agent. Hence the totality of these symptoms, 
 this outwardly reflected image of the inner nature 
 of the disease, i. e., of the suffering vital force, must 
 be the chief or only means of the disease to make 
 known the remedy necessary for its cure, the only 
 means of determining the selection of the appro- 
 priate remedial agent." 
 
 We are not surprised to find misrepresentation in 
 a controversial pamphlet, but the historian certain- 
 ly should be guiltless in this respect. When Ros- 
 well Park, in his History of Medicine, says that 
 
 16 
 
Hahnemann "denied disease, admitting only symp- 
 toms," he either willfully misrepresents or betrays 
 an inexcusable lack of acquaintance with his sub- 
 ject. When it was no longer possible to deny the 
 truth of Harvey's discovery his enemies declared 
 that it was not original with him. Park says of 
 Hahnemann: "Similia similibus curantur was not 
 original with him." The American Medical Asso- 
 ciation pamphlet says on the same subject : "Let me 
 prove to you by quotations garnered by the late Prof. 
 A. B. Palmer and myself that the so-called 'law of 
 similars' was common property hundreds of years 
 before Hahnemann was born." This laborious gath- 
 ering of two learned professors, resulted in finding 
 quotations from four medical and three non-med- 
 ical men, viz. : Hippocrates, Paracelsus, Valentine, 
 Stahl, Theophrastus, Shakespeare and George 
 Chapman. Had they but consulted Hahnemann's 
 introduction to the Organon they would have rich 
 "garnering," for he there quotes seven medical men, 
 including Hippocrates and Stahl, "who had pre- 
 sentiments that medicines, by their power of pro- 
 ducing analogous morbid symptoms, would cure 
 analogous morbid conditions." If they had then 
 turned to the note on these quotations they would 
 have found something singularly pertinent from 
 Hahnemann himself. Here it is: "The following 
 quotations from authors, having a presentiment 
 of Homoeopathy, are not brought forward for the 
 purpose of proving the stability of this doctrine, 
 sufficiently firm in itself, but they are introduced to 
 escape the accusation of having ignored these pre- 
 sentiments for the sake of the credit of securing the 
 priority of the idea." 
 
 After setting up this man. of garnered straw he is 
 knocked down (in the before-mentioned pamphlet) 
 in this fashion : "It cannot in reason be maintain- 
 ed that Hahnemann had never read of the doctrine 
 of similars, for he was a man of great literary attain- 
 ments, and for many years had earned his living by 
 literary work. I think there are few men in the 
 world today as well versed in the history of medi- 
 cine as Hahnemann was. It was not ignorance 
 then which led him to claim the doctrine of simi- 
 lars as his own invention; it was dishonesty. It is 
 not ignorance on the part of Homoeopaths of today 
 
 17 
 
which leads them to claim the doctrine of similars 
 as the discovery of Etahnemann and the peculiar 
 and exclusive property of their sect ; it is dis- 
 honesty." Yes, Hahnemann was so well "versed 
 in the history of medicine" that he anticipated just 
 such an accusation and left a reply so consummate- 
 ly happy as to make his unversed accusers 
 ridiculous. 
 
 There is evidence in almost any old school Materia 
 Medica, especially Ringer's, that a sort of crude 
 Homoeopathy is gradually replacing "scientific" 
 therapeutics. Either these are arrived at as the re- 
 sult of observation and research, or taken directly 
 from homoeopathic sources. But in either case they 
 carefully refrain from any reference to the law of 
 similars. 
 
 Perhaps the chief reason why therapeutics has 
 made so little progress in the old school during the 
 century compared with the other medical sciences is 
 that it has been a mere appendage of pathology. It 
 is true an enormous amount of work has been done 
 in the study of the physiological action of drugs, 
 but how pitifully inadequate the practical fruits of 
 all this vast labor! It would be interesting to know 
 which had contributed more to this paucity of re- 
 sults the absence of any law of the application of 
 this knowledge to the cure of disease, or the fact 
 that it has been obtained for the most part by gross 
 experiments on the lower animals, and therefore is 
 not always applicable to the human organism? The 
 fact that they have been "toiling so long and found 
 so little" argues the want of a true science of thera- 
 peutics. They have one law, contraria contrariis, 
 and its application by Brunton in the use of Amyl 
 nitrite in the condition known as angina pectoris is 
 a brilliant example of prompt palliative treatment by 
 drugs. Here is a patient with intolerable anguish 
 and pain in the region of the heart, face ashy gray 
 and betraying terror, pulse small and contracted 
 and surface covered with coM perspiration. A few 
 drops of Amyl nitrite applied to the nostrils and al- 
 most immediately his face begins to flush ; he warms 
 up, he breathes freely and the intolerable anguish 
 is gone. This palliative use of a drug has the same 
 relation to Homoeopathy as the use of chloroform 
 or ether as general anaesthetics. 
 
 18 
 
The accepted definition of a homoeopathic physi- 
 cian is "one who adds to his knowledge of medicine 
 a special knowledge of homoeopathic therapeutics 
 and observes the law of similia. All that pertains 
 to the great field of medical learning is his by tradi- 
 tion, by inheritance, by right." He does not need 
 to resort to palliative measures so often as one who 
 knows nothing of the law of similars, but he may 
 avail himself of every real aid that promotes the 
 comfort or cure of his patient. The end and ob- 
 ject of the medical art is to cure disease. Thera- 
 peutics of all the collateral medical sciences which 
 has most to do with the cure of disease has made 
 little or no progress among those who reject Hahne- 
 mann's teaching. It is anything but scientific. 
 Therapeutics is the strong side of Homoeopathy. It 
 is the explanation of its vigorous existence as a sep- 
 arate school. Is not the conclusion irresistible that 
 in the one school they have not yet got hold of the 
 right clue, of the true philosophy of the science? 
 Hahnemann arrived at the doctrine of similia simili- 
 bus curentur .by the "exact" methods of the latter 
 two-thirds of the nineteenth century, though his 
 environment was of the speculative spirit of the 
 eighteenth century, which overlapped the first third 
 of the nineteenth. His was the experimental method. 
 He put the question to nature. He says : "The true 
 physician should know [regarding the action of 
 drugs], first, what is the pure action of each by it- 
 self on the healthy human body? secondly, what do 
 observations of their action in various simple or 
 complicated maladies teach us?" Read also this 
 quotation from the preface to the Materia Medica 
 Pura : "If a work on Materia Medica can reveal the 
 precise qualities of medicines it must be one from 
 which all mere assumption and empty speculation 
 about the reputed qualities of drugs are excluded, 
 and which only records what medicines express 
 concerning their true mode of action in the symp- 
 toms they produce in the human body." Is not this 
 in thorough accord with the exact methods in 
 science today? It has been said that "the study of 
 physiology and pathology within the past half cen- 
 tury has done more to emancipate medicine from 
 routine and the thralldom of authority than the 
 work of all the physicians from the days of Hip- 
 
 19 
 
pocrates to jenner." Homoeopathy has stood this 
 crucial test. Some of the new discoveries seemed 
 at first subversive of the doctrine, but when finally 
 relegated to their proper domain were found to be 
 consistent with and in some cases confirmatory. The 
 germ origin of certain diseases when discov- 
 ered seemed to imply a revolution in methods of 
 treatment, but after twenty-five years it is found 
 that the best bactericides for bacteria invading the 
 body are dynamically acting medicines. Bacteria 
 being of the vegetable world were here long before 
 man, and man would not have survived if the special 
 function of protection against these minute enemies 
 had not been evolved; for protection from enemies 
 is as important for the survival of the species as 
 nutrition or reproduction. Indeed "experiment has 
 demonstrated that there resides within the tissues 
 and fluids of the body the property of destroying 
 disease-producing micro-organisms in . large or 
 small numbers." In vigorous health it is most man- 
 ifest, while the effects of malnutrition, fatigue, de- 
 bauch, disease, and, in short, all influences that 
 materially disturb the equilibrium of physiological 
 function are to diminish or destroy it entirely. We 
 have already seen that inflammation and fever which 
 are disturbances of the physiological equilibrium are 
 conservative or curative exaltations of physiological 
 function. May not the dynamically acting remedy 
 applied in accordance with the law of similars serve 
 as the awakener of this latent protective and cura- 
 tive function? In venturing this it is not with the 
 idea of giving an adequate "explanation" of the law, 
 but rather to refute the implied imputation that it is 
 not rational. 
 
 The common platform upon which all sincere ad- 
 herents of Homoeopathy stand is that the most prac- 
 tical guide to aid in the selection of most, perhaps all 
 medicines in the cure of disease is the rule, similia 
 similibus curentur. This is accepted, not as the re- 
 sult of any speculative reasoning, but as an em- 
 pirical fact. Several plausible explanations of the 
 modus operandi of the law of similars have been 
 suggested, and one by Hahnemann himself, but he 
 says he puts "a slight value upon an attempt at ex- 
 planation." No one has ever explained the modus 
 
 20 
 
operandi of the law of gravitation, but that does not 
 affect our belief in the law. 
 
 In trying to present the essential principles upon 
 which the doctrine of Homoeopathy rests, the found- 
 er has been quoted, for no one since has stated the 
 case so clearly or convincingly. There is such an 
 embarrassment of riches in quotable matter in 
 Hahnemann's writings, pertinent for study at this 
 beginning of the 2Oth century, that these somewhat 
 random selections are but meagre examples of a 
 wealth of up-to-date medical philosophy. Study 
 Hahnemann's works. Begin with the Lesser 
 Writings and see how the doctrine unfolds itself. 
 The dogmatic and epigrammatic sentences of the 
 Organon, each "like a ponderous block of stone, 
 hewn and sculptured by the skill of an artisan, 
 seeming to have been lifted with Titan power to fill 
 its place and purpose in the structure," will be in- 
 vested with new meaning. There is nothing in 
 contemporary medical literature that will repay 
 study so well. There is nothing in modern writers 
 commensurate with his master's grasp of the phil- 
 osophy of the art of medicine. Let no one think that 
 its failure to be universally accepted argues against 
 its truthfulness. Another great German philoso- 
 pher has said: /Truth can bide its time, for it has 
 a long life before it. Whatever is genuine and seri- 
 ously meant is always slow to make its way, and 
 certainly attains its end almost miraculously; for on 
 .its first appearance, it, as -a rule, meets with a cool, 
 if not ungracious reception, and this for exactly the 
 same reason that when it is fully recognized, and 
 passed on to posterity, the immense majority of men 
 take it on credit, in order to avoid compromising 
 themselves, whereas the number of genuine appre- 
 ciates remains nearly as small as it was at first. 
 Truth depends upon no one's favor or disfavor, nor 
 does it ask any one's leave; it stands upon its own 
 feet, and has time for its ally; its power is irresist- 
 ible ; its life indestructible. 
 
 21 
 
WHY STUDENTS OF MEDICINE SHOULD SELECT THE 
 HOMEOPATHIC SCHOOL. 
 
 BY DR. V. E. BALDWIN, AMBOY, IND. 
 
 "It is a pleasure," said Lord Bacon, "to stand 
 upon the shore and see a ship tossed upon the sea; 
 a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle and see 
 a battle and the adventures thereof below; but no 
 pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the 
 vantage ground of truth (a hill not to be com- 
 manded, and where the air is clear and serene) and 
 to see the errors and wanderings and mists and 
 tempests in the vale below." 
 
 Truth Supreme. 
 
 Truth is eternal and unchanging, the immut- 
 able relationship of things which preserves their 
 unity. It cannot be despised, and if ignored the 
 penalty of ignorance, indolence and impudence is to 
 pay. It demands the submission of the ambitious 
 man and wins the reverence of the student. The right 
 relationship of facts, events and truths is the chief 
 concern of men today. The greatest thing in * the 
 world is to know the truth, the bravest thing in the 
 world is to live it. 
 
 The world is progressive. It is ever approaching 
 a correct understanding of this unchanging 
 relationship. In every branch of learning new 
 truths are being revealed, new laws discovered, and 
 he who would win the crown which truth awards 
 must adjust himself to the eternal verities. 
 
 Men are made free by truth., There are many, 
 however, who, admitting their woeful confusion, 
 are so conservative, so satisfied with present knowl- 
 edge, that they will not investigate. They cannot 
 grow. There are some so bigoted, so stubborn, that 
 in spite of reason and regardless of evidence they 
 pursue a wanton course in old and beaten paths. 
 There are others so radical, so irreverent, believing 
 all is false, that they ignore the good that is. They 
 are not only poor authority and bad advisers, but 
 world retarders. ' The truth seeker is liberal ; he has 
 a reverent conservatism, is judicious in accepting 
 
 22 
 
new things ; he proves all things, holds fast to that 
 which is good, presses forward. 
 
 It is taken for granted that this is the attitude of 
 the prospective student, especially the student of 
 medicine. Principles rather than policy, conviction 
 rather than tradition or environment, should decide 
 the course of the prospective physician. His first 
 aim should be to know the truth, ivhat is true re- 
 garding health, what is true about disease, what is 
 true about curative medicine. 
 
 History of Medicine. 
 
 Confidence is an essential factor of enthusiasm. 
 Law is an essential factor of science. 
 Science is the key to progress. 
 Strange as it may appear, every branch of art and 
 science has made more rapid progress during the 
 past few centuries than medicine. Medical men had 
 not been liberal, had worked in the dark, had failed 
 to grasp the relationship of the things they dealt 
 with ; they could not advance. For a thousand years 
 little or no progress was made toward systematizing 
 a science of therapeutics. Men were growing faith- 
 less and skeptical as to the possibilities of a science 
 of therapeutics. Dr. Charles Williams says in his 
 "Principles of Medicine" (allopathic) : "Compare 
 the state of medicine with that of anatomy, physi- 
 ology, and chemistry, how minute, how precise, how 
 connected, how definite are these, yet how loose, 
 how indefinite, how uncertain, how unconnected is 
 the practice of our art." Brown-Sequard, the 
 great pathologist and physiologist of France, said in 
 1866: "We find very little known as regards. the 
 real and ultimate action of remedies. This is much 
 to be lamented." The late editor of the Dublin Med- 
 ical Journal (allopathic) remarks in an editorial: 
 " Assuredly, the uncertain and unsatisfactory art 
 which we call medical science is no science at all, 
 but a mere jumble of inconsistent opinions, of con- 
 clusions hastily and often incorrectly drawn, of facts 
 misunderstood, of comparisons without analogy, of 
 hypotheses without reason and of theories not only 
 useless but dangerous." 
 
 Meanwhile the natural sciences have made rapid 
 strides toward organization. In these branches laws 
 had been discovered, their truth proved and main- 
 
 \ 23 
 
tained, and around them all other related facts have 
 taken their place naturally and inevitably. In 
 physics, Archimedes, by accident, it seemed, had 
 observed and demonstrated the law of specific 
 gravity. In mechanics the law which is its basic 
 principle "the less force equals the greater by mov- 
 ing through more space at the same time" had been 
 discovered by Galileo. Newton's law that "all 
 bodies attract each other directly as the mass and 
 inversely as the square of the distance" became the 
 foundation for astronomy. Harvey demonstrated 
 the circulation of the blood and thence revolutioniz- 
 ed physiology. Dalton placed chemistry along with 
 the exact sciences when he proved that "elementary 
 and simple bodies combine with each other to form 
 compound bodies in definite and fixed proportions." 
 Many others might be enumerated as the laws of 
 friction, electricity, the elasticity of steam, and the 
 discovery of the magnetic needle; all of these have 
 been means to enable modern inventors to provide 
 for us the comforts of this twentieth century. Be- 
 cause of the discovery of these laws along scientific 
 lines of study there can be unanimity of opinion and 
 assurance of progress. 
 
 Until the last century medicine had no such fully 
 demonstrated laws. Its confused state, as well as 
 the unsatisfactory results in practice at the close of 
 the previous century, was an excuse for the more in- 
 telligent and conscientious to shift about for a more 
 definite and assuring means of healing the sick. 
 Time and again the more philosophical of the pro- 
 fession had glimpses of the guiding law. But none 
 were astute enough to formulate and promulgate 
 the doctrine. 
 
 A Law in Medicine. 
 
 It was not until 1796 that a definite law of thera- 
 peutics was ever asserted. Six years previously, while 
 Dr. Samuel Hahnemann was translating Cullen's 
 work on allopathic materia medica, he suddenly 
 conceived the mystical idea of the law of Similia 
 Similibus Curentur. Here it was that he read 
 "cinchona bark when taken in large doses would 
 produce on the healthy symptoms similar to ague." 
 Yet it was recommended for the cure of ague. He 
 paused in his work and marvelled at this coinci- 
 
 24 
 
dence. "Can it be possible that this is the reason 
 why cinchona bark cures ague," he asked himself. 
 He would experiment upon himself ; he would know 
 the truth. Lo, and behold, his surmises were veri- 
 fied, he developed a typical chill, and symptoms of 
 an intermittent fever. He made a decoction of the 
 bark and prescribed it to the sick complaining of 
 similar symptoms, and to his delight the coincidence 
 became a verified fact in his experience. He might 
 have shouted, as did Archimedes, when he plunged 
 into his bath and noted that he had displaced an 
 amount of water equal to his own bulk, "T have 
 found it! I have found it!" 
 
 The law of therapeutics seemed very clear to him 
 then. On making subsequent provings of other 
 drugs upon the healthy, and prescribing them in 
 like manner for the sick with similar phenomena, he 
 was invariably successful. 
 
 Two Schools in Medicine. 
 
 Since the announcement of the observation 
 Hahnemann made, there have been two medical 
 schools; the one allopathic, supporting the ancient 
 notion of prescribing for the sick on the basis of 
 results obtained by experiments; the other homoeo- 
 pathic, resting its therapeutics upon the law of 
 "similars." 
 Teachings in Common. 
 
 Before going farther into the discussion of the 
 tenets of each school let us eliminate the subject 
 matter upon which all agree, and because of which 
 there would be no grounds whatever for distinct 
 and separate institutions. All the natural sciences, 
 so far as they are applicable to the study of medicine, 
 have or should have equal prominence in the course 
 of study. Physics and chemistry are the same in 
 both; botany and zoology, biology and physiology, 
 as important to the one as to the other, are taught in 
 both. Anatomy and surgery are subjects upon 
 which there is little ground for contention. We use 
 the same text-books in histology and psychology, 
 and apply nearly the same rules in hygiene and 
 dietetics. 
 Where the Schools Diverge. 
 
 On two subjects only do we diverge, and yet these 
 subjects stand for all that makes any medical college 
 
 25 
 
necessary. They are first, etiology and pathology, 
 the cause and nature of disease ; and second, thera- 
 peutics, the science of cure. Here we divide. On 
 these two foundation stones we must erect systems 
 of medicine. It is hard to separate these subjects, 
 as a science of cure is almost wholly determined by 
 understanding the cause and nature of disease. 
 This statement is verified by the fact that in the 
 past allopathic therapeutic methods have been 
 changed from time to time to adjust themselves to 
 the new theories of pathologists as to the nature of 
 disease. On the basis that disease is due to some 
 morbid matter existing in the body, it calls for 
 purges, diuretics and sudorifics ; or, if there were 
 any inequalities of circulation these call for blisters 
 and bleeding; toxins in the blood call for chemical 
 antidotes; bacterial infection calls for antiseptics, 
 the therapeutic agent always changing with new ex- 
 planations of morbid processes. There being no 
 fixed etiology and pathology there could be no en- 
 during therapeutics. 
 
 There could be no fixed etiology, because there 
 was no fixed point of view. The "pathologist," 
 being at the same time a chemist, a physiologist, 
 anatomist or histologist, would invariably interpret 
 the morbid changes from different points of vision. 
 Since there was no universal law for disease 
 phenomena, the chemist would detect chemical 
 irregularities, in the tissue ; the physiologist, disor- 
 dered function; the anatomist, deformities, and the 
 histologist, cell degeneracy. Consequently there 
 could be no uniformity of opinion, and the existing 
 predominant influence determined the drift of thera- 
 peutical empiricism. 
 
 Homoeopathic Standpoint. 
 
 While it may not be possible to give a complete 
 analysis of morbid changes, however, there are im- 
 portant points upon which Homoeopaths agree. 
 
 First. Any natural phenomena, per se, cannot at 
 the same time be cause and effect. 
 
 It goes without saying that matter cannot exist 
 without cause. Matter of itself is inert; it cannot 
 move ; it cannot grow ; it cannot think ; eve,n organiz- 
 ed bodies cannot exist for any length of time without 
 an immaterial element to hold their parts in com- 
 
 26 
 
bination. The earth, the sun, the universe, all mani- 
 fest an omnipotent influence operative over all, 
 through all and in all. All matter is impregnated 
 with a vital element. 
 
 Man has "the breath of life," his body is the tem- 
 ple of a living soul. There are no accidents in 
 nature, man exists because of the influx of life. 
 Without the spark which vivifies the tissue even his 
 finely organized and complicated body would crum- 
 ble into dust. Call it vital force, simple substance, 
 dynamic power, or what you will, yet back of these 
 bodies, back of organic and inorganic forms, back of 
 earth, the sun and the universe itself is the modify- 
 ing influence of an immaterial force. Rational be- 
 ings cannot leave it out of account. It must play a 
 part in any pathological or therapeutic discussion. 
 Yet to the allopathic prescriber this is so much non- 
 sense. He sees nothing in man but a complicated, 
 though systematic arrangement of tissue elements. 
 From his standpoint the body is the beginning, the 
 end, the sum total of man's existence. That which 
 he cannot see, feel or hear is of little consequence 
 as far as therapeutics is concerned. 
 
 Second. Disease is dynamic disorder. 
 
 The homoeopathic physician acknowledges the im- 
 material element of man's existence as playing an 
 important part in his emotions, sensations and func- 
 tions. He sees deeper than the body, he perceives 
 the hand of law working in his tissues. To him dis- 
 ease means more than degenerated flesh and blood. 
 It means disordered vital economy. To him health 
 is an index of good government, or a proper adjust- 
 ment of vital forces within the body. Disease stands 
 for bad government or a disordered vital economy. 
 
 Let me illustrate this point by analogy. A state 
 is founded on its constitution, a constitution on the 
 will of the people. The will of the people is deter- 
 mined by their intelligence, intelligence is a meas- 
 ure of the perception of right relation, and morals is 
 the measure of its practice. If the intelligence is 
 great and the morals good, so long the state will 
 endure. Let these degenerate and the state will 
 crumble to dust. Enemies may harass and storms 
 threaten, but if the people be patriotic, wise and 
 pure, the state is secure. The greatest enemies to 
 any state are the enemies within. Social and politi- 
 
 27 
 
cal decay will ultimate in riot and ruin, disorder will 
 prevail and disolution threaten. What can be done 
 to restore the state ? Three ways suggest themeslves 
 in such conditions: (i) Coercion, (2) compromise, 
 (3) regeneration and education. 
 
 To coerce the state is sure to meet with resistance 
 or ultimately destroy it; to compromise is always 
 temporary and partial; to regenerate requires wis- 
 dom and time. So it is with the sick man. To try 
 to compel his organism to function only meets with 
 resistance and complication. How often the invalid 
 is drugged with concoctions which disarrange his 
 digestion, disturb his circulation and paralyze his 
 senses in the endeavor to coerce the parts into a 
 state of order, forgetting the disordered life prin- 
 ciple and disregarding the profound struggle which 
 nature is making to restore normal function. Nor 
 can permanent order be restored by compromise. 
 We palliate symptoms for awhile, but event- 
 ually they will recur and most generally in an ag- 
 gravated form. We are driven to admit, theoretic- 
 ally at least, that the only rational method that prom- 
 ises to be safe, speedy and permanent would be to 
 restore order at the center of government. To 
 treat the patient, not his parts ; the tenant, not his 
 house. 
 
 In this analogy is illustrated the contention be- 
 tween allopathy and Homoeopathy. The one mag- 
 nifies the material, the other the immaterial phase of 
 man's existence ; the one suppresses, the other regen- 
 erates. . The allopath says the body is the man, 
 therefore, disease is a pathological lesion, which, 
 when locally repaired, will functionate normally, for- 
 getting the immaterial factors without which there 
 could be no man, either in a state of health or dis- 
 ease. He plasters with poultices to draw out some 
 morbid matter; he washes with antiseptics to de- 
 stroy the microbes; he irritates with caustics to en- 
 force a healing process; paralyzes the part with 
 anodynes to relieve the pain, too often ignorant of 
 effects and indifferent to consequences. Perhaps 
 after all the swelling does not subside, the sore does 
 not heal and the pain recurs. He sees nothing but 
 the lesion and this absolutely refuses to be restored. 
 He has called to his aid all the local adjuvants which 
 experience from previous generations has suggested. 
 
 28 
 
He has fed his patients with the most nutritious diet. 
 He has tried emetics, purgatives, sedatives and stim- 
 ulants, yet the disease not only persists but spreads. 
 The whole vital economy is aroused; now it is a 
 struggle for existence. 
 
 Can disease exist without a cause , can a car- 
 buncle, an ulcer be both cause and effect ? Can taint- 
 ed blood and palsied nerves be the beginning and the 
 ending of disorder simultaneously? Impossible! 
 There is something prior to ulcer, blood and nerve. 
 It is the man himself. The patient is sick, not his 
 skin, his blood, his nerves ; the disorders in these are 
 simply indices of the nature of the disordered man, 
 hints to tell us he is sick, just as the staggering 
 gait, the bloated face, the irrelevant talk tell us a 
 man is drunk. His tissues are not intoxicated, the 
 man has lost co-ordination and the sense of adjust- 
 ment ; his vital processes are in confusion, he is 
 readily diagnosed a drunkard. How foolish it would 
 be to advise the tying of hands to abolish stealing, 
 the ligating of lips to suppress swearing, forgetting 
 the while that the man is a sinner and these are but 
 his symptoms. His inner life is wrong, he needs 
 regeneration and readjustment of its principles to 
 correct his faults. Just so truly the sick man is 
 suffering from perversion and disorder of the vital 
 forces. These must sooner or later be readjusted 
 if he may enjoy ease and comfort. Then, and not 
 till then, will all his morbid conditions and symp- 
 toms disappear safely, speedily and permanently. 
 
 There must be a definite relation between the ulti- 
 mates of disease, as they appear in the body, and the 
 cause of disease as a condition of disordered vital 
 force. Without that cause there could be no lesion. 
 Give that cause, and there must eventually appear a 
 given lesion. Remove the cause, if such be possi- 
 ble, and the lesion must disappear in all curable 
 cases. 
 
 Objections to Allopathy. 
 
 Allopathy uses physiological means to correct a 
 dynamic disorder. Therefore, it is often incom- 
 petent to eradicate the cause. Local applications do 
 not remove it, and do not restore a healthy state. 
 For example, an eczematous eruption of the skin is 
 a pathological lesion which represents an internal 
 
 29 
 
disorder ; it exists because of such disorder. One of 
 Nature's methods to restore order is through erup- 
 tions; the eruption is no accident but a natural 
 sequence. The economy is protecting itself by 
 eliminating that which is an enemy to health. That 
 this constitutional trouble manifests itself in a par- 
 ticular kind of eruption is evident to everyone who 
 observes. The allopath undertakes to cure this erup- 
 tion, and applies some astringent salve, which, per- 
 haps, dries it up or "drives it in." At any rate it 
 disappears. By this act he has opposed Nature's 
 process. Nature's physician seems to say, "Through 
 the skin is the safest and freest avenue of drainage ; 
 an eruption here need not jeopardize the life of the 
 patient." Allopathy says, "This discharge must be 
 stopped." So without inquiry into vital causes he 
 attempts to prevent what Nature is doing for the 
 patient's welfare. If he succeeds it may only follow 
 to his chagrin perhaps he calls it a rare coinci- 
 dence that the disease breaks out afresh in some 
 other part, it may be some vital point. 
 
 The patient is taken with desperate pain, again 
 palliative medicine disregards Nature's danger 
 signal from within, and with anodynes it muffles the 
 cry for help without relieving the cause of the dis- 
 tress. It is only temporary, it cannot be permanent. 
 The physician is unable to affect the immaterial 
 plane with heroic closes, or at least a combination of 
 drugs, for if they do no harm they must be as- 
 similated or eliminated, and at best can only minister 
 to the body on the physical plane. 
 
 Allopathy has no law in therapeutics. The only 
 basis upon which it offers its prescriptions is the ex- 
 perience of other men in other cases. Granted that 
 cases are cured upon this basis, which is readily ad- 
 mitted, there are serious objections to allopathic 
 methods. 
 
 First. Its prescriptions include, with rare excep- 
 tions, two or more active ingredients, not all of 
 which can be specifically indicated in any given case. 
 
 Any drug when taken into the body and assimilated 
 must spend its force some way somewhere, else why 
 should it be prescribed at all? Two or more drugs 
 must inevitably react in as many different ways, else 
 there would be no apparent necessity for more than 
 one. Now, if the disease is a local lesion, and these 
 
 30 
 
drugs are spending their force in different directions, 
 it stands to reason that all of them cannot affect the 
 diseased part. No doctor can prescribe two or more 
 drugs wisely unless he is able to explain two proposi- 
 tions : 
 
 a. As to how these drugs, when taken together, 
 will react upon one another, chemically, physiologic- 
 ally and dynamically. 
 
 b. In what direction and with what final effect 
 will these drugs spend their forces upon the human 
 economy. 
 
 Unless these principles are understood the physi- 
 cian who prescribes must confess his ignorance of 
 grounds for making his prescription. It is folly to 
 say that drugs not specifically indicated will do no 
 harm. This alone is a confession of weakness. And, 
 if they are to be of no benefit why disturb the sys- 
 tem with the disposing of them, which alone would 
 require the expenditure of valuable energy. Scien- 
 tific (?) medicine prescribed for an epileptic : 
 
 If. Iodide of potash, 
 
 Syrup of tolu, aa giij . 
 
 Syrup of Ipecac, %iss. 
 
 Fluid ext. Veratrum viride, . .3i. 
 
 Morph. sulf., grs. iij. MX. 
 
 Sig. One drachm to be taken three times daily. 
 
 Also Bromide of sodium was to be taken in in- 
 creasing doses until it produced bromism ; also some 
 blue mass to alter the secretions, and for the bowels 
 a pill, now and then, composed of Aloes, extract of 
 Hyoscyamus, extract of Ntix vomica and extract of 
 Ipecac. Ten separate function-deranging agents to 
 cure an epileptic. Can any chemist explain the reac- 
 tion of these drugs on one another, not to mention 
 their action in the human economy. Hahnemann 
 said: "The business of the physician is to heal the 
 sick, speedily, gently and permanently." Does it 
 stand to reason that this method would be gentle? 
 Is it even safe ? Upon what principle in therapeutics 
 has "the disease been cured?" 
 
 Second. Experience is not a safe therapeutic 
 guide. 
 
 a. The recurrence of cases of exactly similar type 
 is highly improbable. 
 
 31 
 
b. The action of a drug on one patient might be 
 wholly unlike its action on another, just as ordinary 
 food stuff agreeable to one might be obnoxious to 
 another. 
 
 It is for this reason that science has drawn such 
 widely different conclusions on therapeutic meas- 
 ures when depending on experience. What one doc- 
 tor uses successfully another fails with; what one 
 doctor recommends, another claims is dangerous. 
 Their experiences differ, because no two patients or 
 their sicknesses are identical. Under such condi- 
 tions, what is the inexperienced to do? Can it be 
 that Dr. Kent's old allopathic preceptor spoke the 
 truth when he said to him: "Doctor, you will lose 
 scores of cases before you will learn what not to do." 
 
 Third. Allopathic physicians do not agree in their 
 prescriptions. 
 
 They have no means of actually determining what 
 is the indicated remedy in any case they treat; they 
 declare there can be no law. Osier, one of the great- 
 est of allopathic practitioners and authors, says 
 repeatedly in his text that the expectant methods are 
 all that can be depended upon. He even refuses to 
 suggest indicated remedies in his treatise on prac- 
 tice (allopathic). Outside of Opium, Calomel, Qui- 
 nine, Potasium iodide, salts and Arsenic, the domi- 
 nant school depends largely upon the recommended 
 preparations of pharmaceutical houses for its reme- 
 dies. Dr. S. E. Chapman, of California, took a very 
 careful record of the symptoms of a patient with a 
 detailed history of the case. He sent this statement, 
 enclosing a two dollar bill, to ten allopathic physi- 
 cians of national repute, and asked for a prescription. 
 At the same time he sent the statement to ten Ho- 
 moeopaths of equal repute in different parts of the 
 United States. Eight of the allopaths answered, and 
 sent as many separate prescriptions, including a 
 score or more of distinct drugs. No two agreed; 
 one refused to prescribe without seeing the patient ; 
 one did not reply. The Homoeopaths gave a unani- 
 mous decision in favor of a single remedy. Repeat- 
 ed tests of this kind have resulted similarly. In the 
 light of such variety of conclusions on the same 
 set of symptoms, is it justifiable to speak of allo- 
 pathic practice as scientific medicine? 
 
 Prof. H. C. Wood, in the preface of his "Treatise 
 
 32 
 
on Therapeutics" (allopathic), sums up the condi- 
 tion as follows : "Experience is said to be the mother 
 of wisdom. Verily she has been in medicine rather 
 a blind leader of the blind, and the history of medi- 
 cal progress is the history of a man groping in the 
 darkness, finding seeming gems of truth, one after 
 another, only in a few minutes to cast each back into 
 a heap of forgotten baubles that in their day had also 
 been mistaken for verities. Narrowing our gaze to 
 the regular profession to a few decades, what do we 
 see? Experience teaching that not to bleed a man 
 for pneumonia is to consign him to an unopened 
 grave, and experience teaching that to bleed a man 
 suffering with pneumonia is to consign him to a 
 grave never opened by nature. Looking at the revo- 
 lutions of the past, listening to the therapeutic babel 
 of the present, is it a wonder that men should take 
 refuge in nihilism, and like the lotus eaters dream 
 that all alike is folly, that rest and quiet and calm are 
 the only human fruitions ?" 
 
 The Tenets of Homoeopathy. 
 
 Is it any wonder that in times like these men of 
 philosophical turn of mind should long for and search 
 for a key that might solve the problem of the rela- 
 tionship of drugs to the phenomena of disease? It 
 has been said that searching minds and living truths 
 cannot always abide apart. Ever since the time of 
 Aristotle it was conceded that such a relationship 
 existed, and frequently the truth was all but reveal- 
 ed. It happened by the merest chance to be disclosed 
 in tact to that master mind, that patron saint of an 
 accurate therapeutics, Samuel Hahnemann. Al- 
 though from the first it seemed very clear, yet it re- 
 mained for him to demonstrate to the world : i. That 
 disease was the product of disordered vital force; 
 2. that drugs when given to the healthy could produce 
 certain definite pathogenetic variations from the 
 normal ; 3. that these results were relatively the same 
 for all men, at all times, in all places ; and, 4. finally, 
 that those drugs will cure such natural morbid symp- 
 toms in the sick as they have been shown to produce 
 artificially in the healthy. 
 
 On this framework Homoeopathy has founded her 
 Materia Medica and practical therapeutics. It re- 
 mains for us to establish these tenets as sound and 
 
 33 
 
practical in order to demonstrate the advantages of 
 Homoeopathy over allopathy. 
 
 Comparing the Materia Medica of the Two Schools. 
 
 It is taken for granted that the first point is estab- 
 lished. Let us compare allopathic Materia Medica 
 with that of Homoeopathy. Homoeopathic provings 
 have been made upon healthy human beings ; a given 
 drug carefully selected, purified and prepared is 
 taken in rep-eated doses by a given number of 
 healthy persons. Careful notes are taken by both the 
 subject and his observers of all the signs and symp- 
 toms which vary from the normal. Those signs and 
 symptoms which are common to all are set down as 
 of greatest significance. Those that are experienced 
 by a small per cent, of the provers are indicated as of 
 less significance, and so on down the scale. All the 
 signs and symptoms are recorded in a degree of 
 prominence in which they are manifested. In this 
 way all our drugs are proved. Besides these, but of 
 minor importance, might be mentioned the symp- 
 toms noted in poison cases which result more or less 
 seriously, and finally, and of the least importance, is 
 the clinical experience of observant practitioners. 
 This constitutes the drug pathogenesis and materia 
 medica of symptoms, so that Homoeopaths know rela- 
 tively what to expect from any given drug, how it 
 spends itself in a human organism, and how it per- 
 verts the sensorium. 
 
 Allopathic Materia Medica is made up from three 
 sources : 
 
 a. Clinical experience, or the result of the action 
 of drugs on the sick. 
 
 b. The action of drugs upon healthy animals. 
 
 c. The pathological changes produced by drugs as 
 shown by vivisection and post mortems. 
 
 The objections to such methods are apparent to 
 thoughtful observers. Such Materia Medica would 
 not only be unreliable but impracticable. It could not 
 be constant in the first place. The effect of a drug up- 
 on one person in sickness might be different from that 
 upon another. The causes of diseases being various, 
 the nature of disease being modified by family his- 
 tory, and individual idiosyncrasies, and physical 
 environment, the action of any drug must be uncer- 
 tain and confusing. Again, animals cannot talk ; ex- 
 
 34 
 
periments upon them must therefore be unsatisfact- 
 ory and unreliable. The nice discriminations, which 
 are most important, of modified sensations and emo- 
 tions, cannot be elicited from them. Perhaps, too, 
 they are not susceptible to the same influences which 
 men are susceptible to and in the same manner and 
 "degree. Finally, suppose the physician could know, 
 which he cannot, the remedy indicated by the pa- 
 thological state of the diseased organ, how could he 
 make such knowledge practicable at the bedside ? If 
 the doctor must make a microscopical slide of the 
 patient's liver, kidney or spleen to determine the 
 remedy he needs then he might as well engage the 
 undertaker and be done with it. This part of Materia 
 Medica reminds us of the practice of the nurseryman 
 who pulled out the grafts to see whether they had 
 started to grow. Such a Materia Medica based on 
 such observations is not only full of false conclusions 
 and theoretical statements but is very unscientific 
 and impracticable. 
 
 The homoeopathic Materia Medica is true for all 
 men in all places and in all ages. The experiments 
 on scores of healthy people at one time must give a 
 record that will be constant for all men in all times. 
 The factors are constant, the result must be constant. 
 Given a healthy person and a pure drug, we will get 
 a given pathogenesis. According to allopathic 
 Materia Medica the factors are inconstant. A vari- 
 able disease in man and a pure drug must give a 
 variable result. This accounts for the confusion in 
 "regular" medicine. 
 
 Drug phenomena equal disease phenomena. Here 
 as in all the natural sciences, law directs, experience 
 confirms. Hahnemann observed the striking simili- 
 tude between the signs and symptoms produced by 
 the action of Cinchona on the healthy, and the cura- 
 tive action when applied to ague and intermittent 
 fever. His subsequent experience verified his con- 
 clusion that the law of similars was true. He first 
 grasped the relationship between drug action and 
 disease signs and set it down as law. Law is not 
 matter, it simply confirms a fixed relationship of 
 matter. When Newton observed that the apple fell 
 when separated from the branch, he was able to as- 
 sert in a general proposition, which time anr! ex- 
 perience has confirmed, the law of gravitation. Such 
 
 35 
 
a statement of the relationship of bodies is law, until 
 experience can controvert it. There is only one way 
 to demonstrate a law and that is by the practical 
 test. Will it work ? To Hahnemann's mind the law 
 was true, because when he applied it, it removed the 
 complaints. It is not a question of logic so much as 
 common sense. It is not a question of probability . 
 but of certainty ; it must either be true all the time or 
 false all the time. If called upon to define electricity, 
 magnetism or gravitation you would make a dismal 
 failure. Scientific men have given up the idea of 
 reaching an explanation from a material standpoint. 
 However, that does not hinder them from applying 
 these forces according to the laws discovered. No 
 one now refuses to ride in street cars because they do 
 not understand the action of the motor. The cars 
 run and that is sufficient. 
 
 In the same light should the law of "similia" be 
 tested. In all the literature against Homoeopathy 
 no one has succeeded in proving that it does not 
 work. The small coterie of men surrounding Hahne- 
 mann in the beginning of the century has now in- 
 creased to thousands. They are to be found in 
 every nation. They have come, the best of the 
 early men at least, from allopathic ranks. Every 
 year the number increases, and why? Because Ho- 
 moeopathy cures. The men who put it to an honest 
 test are its converts, there are no backsliders from 
 the homoeopathic camp. There are many, indeed, 
 who are incompetent to apply its rigid precepts, and 
 from ignorance or indolence stumble along, sometimes 
 falling out entirely, but never because of the failure 
 of the law. Wherever it has been faithfully applied 
 human suffering has been alleviated. 
 
 The provings of Hahnemann made a hundred 
 years ago are true today, always will be true. Allo- 
 pathic Materia Medica has changed again and again ; 
 the text-books of yesterday are obsolete today; the 
 text-books of today will be altered tomorrow. As 
 Prof. H, C. Wood remarked: "What has clinical 
 therapeutics established permanently, indisputably? 
 Scarcely anything beyond the primary fact that 
 quinine will arrest an intermittent, that salts will 
 purge, that opium will quiet pain and lull to sleep." 
 But the Materia Medica of Hahnemann and the early 
 masters is the masterpiece of homoeopathic practice 
 
 36 
 
forever. When allopathy is forgotten and its patrons 
 pointed out as curiosities of medical history ; when 
 its books are laid upon the shelves, dust covered and 
 moth eaten, the provings of Hahnemann will still 
 remain the permanent guide and authority for ho- 
 moeopathic practice. If any prospective medical stu- 
 dent desires to practice tomorrow what he learns in 
 the colleges today he must be trained and educated 
 in a homoeopathic school. 
 
 Homoeopathy Is Scientific. 
 
 Homoeopathy is the only system in which pre- 
 vision is possible. One of the tests of the universali- 
 ty of a law is the ability to predict results by its ap- 
 plication. Given a certain definite set of symptoms 
 it should be possible to determine a definite remedial 
 agent. If this cannot be accomplished by any thera- 
 peutic system it is unworthy the name of being 
 scientific ; it does not merit the patronage and favor 
 of a science-loving public. When Asia was being 
 swept with cholera and allopathy was losing over 
 two-thirds of its patients, Hahnemann secured a d* 5 - 
 scription of a typical case, and after comparing the 
 symptoms with those of the proved drugs, publicly 
 declared that in the first stage Camphor would re- 
 lieve, and in the later stages the remedies were 
 Cuprum and Veratrum album. When the plague 
 struck Europe, by these simple remedies Homoeop- 
 athy was able to save three-fourths of the cases, 
 while allopathy was still losing two-thirds. It was 
 on the result of the law of similars as applied to 
 cholera that hundreds of unprejudiced and thought- 
 ful doctors of the old way were compelled to loosen 
 their moorings and investigate the tenets of Ho- 
 moeopathy. To investigate was to be converted. 
 Hereby hangs the most interesting chapters in the 
 life story of Jahr, Hering, Lippe, Holcombe, Dun- 
 ham and others. 
 
 Homoeopathy is to be preferred to allopathy be- 
 cause it engenders confidence and enthusiasm. The 
 successful mechanic must know how to use his tools, 
 when to use them, and where to use them. If he 
 knows these things the building of a house becomes 
 an intensely interesting piece of work. If the sur- 
 geon knows his anatomy and is skillful with his in- 
 struments an operation is a delightful task. The 
 
 37 
 
chemist who understands the relationship of ele- 
 ments is fascinated with his experiments, and the 
 doctor who knows the action of all his remedies, and 
 the exact diseased state in which they are applicable, 
 finds pleasure and profit in his practice. The Ho- 
 moeopath knows the drug action of every remedy 
 that he uses. According to the law of similars he 
 knows, then, in what diseased states they are appli- 
 cable. He has reason to be confident. Someone has 
 said, "He that knows and knows that he knows is 
 wise, follow him." 
 
 A man cannot be scientific and at the same time be 
 ignorant, prejudiced or indolent. The medical stu- 
 dent must answer these questions for himself : 
 
 First. Is the law of similars true ; if not, why not ? 
 
 Second. Has any substitute been offered for it ? 
 The Homoeopathic Principle Tested. 
 
 Homoeopathy asserts that it is true. For a hun- 
 dred years it has been subject to investigation; the 
 pioneers of Homoeopathy were allopaths who had in- 
 vestigated it. Out of the committee of five appoint- 
 ed by the leading British Medical Society^ to investi- 
 gate and expose it two were converted and the other 
 three never reported. 
 
 Constantine Hering, who became the patron saint 
 of Homoeopathy in this country, was similarly ap- 
 pointed by a Berlin Medical Society to investigate it 
 and to controvert it. His conversion resulted. Our 
 late Dr. P. P. Wells is another who enjoyed a similar 
 fate. It has been so thoroughly tried and tested that 
 to deny that the law exists is foolish; one might as 
 well say that the earth does not move nor the apple 
 fall. The fact that ninety per cent, of the graduates 
 of her colleges spend the remainder of their days 
 in its practice, while only thirty-three and one-third 
 per cent, of the old school graduates stay in that pro- 
 fession, would indicate that it was true. Almost 
 every consistent and energetic homoeopathic practi- 
 tioner is making a good income, and what is better he 
 delights in his work. Truth is never narrow ; one truth 
 is but a stepping stone to another. Standing upon the 
 vantage ground of truth all related facts are re- 
 vealed, error is dethroned and faith is supreme. The 
 Homoeopath is not a skeptic, he is not working in the 
 dark, but obedient to. law he loves it, and because he 
 loves it he obeys it. 
 
 38 
 
The Discouragements of Allopathic Treatment. 
 
 Allopathy has neither been able to demonstrate 
 the fallibility of the law nor to formulate a substitute, 
 therefore its practice is not only empirical but law- 
 less. Is it any wonder that the more thoughtful be- 
 come disheartened, disgusted and some of them dis- 
 honest ? Disheartened, because like ships adrift they 
 have no rudder ; disgusted, because they cannot cure 
 their patients ; dishonest, because they have lost their 
 faith in drugs and dare not retreat. 
 
 For this reason allopathy in these later days, fail- 
 ing in medicine, is magnifying surgery. Nearly every 
 serious case is subjected to an operation. So 
 common has this become, and when surgery is not 
 indicated, especially in chronic diseases, that even 
 among students this expression is common fun 
 "The operation was a success but the patient died." 
 Even in therapeutic surgery there is confusion; 
 what one commends another condemns. The patient 
 is subject entirely to the caprice of his doctor, who 
 proceeds to adopt a course of treatment recommended 
 by the profession much as our grandmothers pre- 
 scribed catnip or peppermint tea according to the 
 dictates of the most influential neighbor. 
 
 Homoeopathy In Practice. 
 
 Homoeopathy has won its most unmistakable 
 rights to the favor of science by its results in prac- 
 tice. Here only can we estimate the great difference 
 between the schools. Statistics talk ; if you were go- 
 ing to invest your money in land you would inquire 
 into the productivity of the soil. If you were going 
 to invest in loans you would demand the best securi- 
 ty. In every business enterprise you would count 
 the cost and estimate the gain. So, too, the prospect- 
 ive doctor must ask of the schools three questions: 
 
 First. By which system have I the assurance of 
 the least mortality ? 
 
 Second. In which school are my opportunities and 
 possibilities the larger and nobler. 
 
 Third. Which do I want, science based on law and 
 fact, or only .the consensus of current opinion? 
 
 Since statistics are open to all they will tell their 
 own story. Allopaths never care to refer to them, 
 they are too embarrassing, there is too much to ex- 
 plain. A man prominent in the profession recently 
 
 39 
 
remarked that "with all their increase of remedial 
 agents in the last fifty years, the allopaths have not 
 been able to reduce the mortality in pneumonia in a 
 single per cent." 
 
 Another doctor bewailed the lamentable increase 
 of heart failures since the introduction of coal-tar 
 products for acute disease. The late Dr. Rush, of 
 Chicago, speaking on this point said: "Instead of 
 modern medicine limiting disease it has been instru- 
 mental in complicating and increasing it." On the 
 other hand, the mortality under homoeopathic treat- 
 ment decreases with the increase of the knowledge 
 of the Materia Medica and the laws of similars. In 
 every instance where records have been kept the 
 mortality is less under Homoeopathy than under 
 allopathy. The comparative statistics of Homoeop- 
 athy and allopathy in hospital practice covering a 
 period of five years compiled by Dr. Joseph Buchner, 
 of New York, shows the death rate of the two 
 schools to be as follows : 
 
 Disease. All. Horn. Ratio. 
 
 Erysipelas, 23 % 8 % 28 I 
 
 Diarrhoea, 21.2 " 9 " 23 
 
 Fevers, 5.3 " 1.2 " 4 
 
 Typhus, 16 " 13.3 " i 
 
 Pleurisy, 15.6 " 11.3 " 2 
 
 Inflammation of bowels, 41 " 6.1 " 7 
 
 Pneumonia, 29.4 " 6.3 " 4 
 
 Dysentery, 26.8 " 7.1 " 3 
 
 Heart affections, 51.7 " 15.5 " 3 
 
 Apoplexy, 48.3 " 28.5 " 1.5 
 
 Consumption, 48.5 " 38.5 " i 1 /,, 
 
 This is typical of all hospital records. 
 
 A comparison in the orphan asylums in New 
 York covering a period of twelve years showed the 
 allopathic death-rate to be one in every forty-one 
 cases, and the homoeopathic death-rate to be one in 
 every one hundred and forty-six cases, or a ratio of 
 three to one. Figures from the report on the epi- 
 demic of yellow fever in the United States in 1878 
 showed an average mortality for the allopaths of 
 eighteen and six-tenths per cent., and the Homoeo- 
 paths six and six-tenths per cent., or a ratio of three 
 to one. In the Irish famine of 1847 three classes of 
 
 40 
 
hospitals were instituted with the following results: 
 
 Allopathic treatment, death-rate, thirteen per cent. 
 
 No treatment, simply cleanliness and good diet, 
 ten per cent. 
 
 Homoeopathic treatment, death-rate, two per cent. 
 
 Here, according to Kidd, the old school treatment 
 proves it to be worse than none by three per cent. 
 
 In the light of such statistics, and many more of 
 similar significance, is it a wonder that the Chicago 
 Inter-Ocean has said editorially: "They who have 
 not tried Homoeopathy have not half tried to get 
 well." 
 
 This evidence should have some weight with the 
 prospective student of medicine. More than this, 
 Homoeopathy is rapidly becoming the leading prac- 
 tice in many of our cities. In fifty years fourteen 
 thousand students have graduated from the twenty 
 homoeopathic colleges in the United States. Ten 
 million patients are under homoeopathic care, and 
 millions more await homoeopathic physicians. To- 
 day the demand is in excess of the supply. Thou- 
 sands of towns and cities are yet without a ho- 
 moeopathic practitioner where handsome patronage 
 is available. With the least mortality the demand is 
 the greatest. With field the broadest the opportunity 
 is the largest. 
 
 Every allopathic medical journal will tell the stu- 
 dent that the field of medicine is full. State societies 
 are urging everywhere more astringent regulations 
 to check the product. A mighty army of allopaths 
 is jostling elbow against elbow in the mad race for a 
 living, while thousands of inviting fields await the 
 coming of the scientific and successful physician, he 
 who prescribes by law and system. Homoeopathy 
 cures, it is an accurate and precise form of practice, 
 it appeals to reason, intelligence and the finer senses 
 of man when studied and understood, and it offers 
 quicker relief, speedier cure, and more permanent 
 benefit to suffering mankind than any system of 
 medication which has ever been devised. Its slogan 
 is "Truth," its history "Progress." He who enters 
 its profession will not have made a mistake. 
 
WHY STUDENTS OF MEDICINE SHOULD SELECT THE 
 HOMEOPATHIC SCHOOL. 
 
 BY "QUE DITES VOUS."* 
 
 Among the beautiful works of art that adorn our 
 national capital is a splendid monument in granite 
 and bronze upon which may be found this inscrip- 
 tion : 
 
 CHRISTIAN FREDERICK SAMUEL HAHNEMANN, 
 DOCTOR IN MEDICINE. 
 
 HOFRATH 
 LEADER IN THE GREAT MEDICAL REFORMATION 
 
 OF THE 
 NINETEENTH CENTURY 
 
 AND 
 
 FOUNDER OF THE 
 HOMEOPATHIC SCHOOL. 
 
 This monument was dedicated June 21, 1900, in the 
 city of Washington, D. C, by the American Insti- 
 tute of Homoeopathy, the oldest national medical so- 
 ciety in America. One of the foremost periodicals 
 of the school thus speaks of it: "It stands for what 
 we, as Homoeopathists, believe is true and best in 
 medical science; it stands for honesty, for liberality, 
 for tolerance ; it stands for scientific medicine ; it 
 stands for Homoeopathy." 
 
 Hahnemann, the founder of Homoeopathy, the 
 "Leader in the Great Medical Reformation of the 
 Nineteenth Century," was a German physician, a 
 scholar, a philosopher, and a master of ten lan- 
 guages. He was versed in all branches of science 
 independent of as well as connected with medicine, 
 and he ranked as one of the profound scholars of 
 his day. 
 
 In proof of this we quote the following from no less 
 an authority than Sir John Forbes, physician-in-or- 
 dinary to the Queen : "No careful observer of his 
 actions, or candid reader of his writings, can hesi- 
 
 *Pursuant to the writer's desire to remain in- 
 cognito, unless first place was attained. 
 
 42 
 
tate for a moment to admit that he was a very ex- 
 traordinary man, one whose name will descend to 
 posterity as the exclusive excogitator and founder 
 of an original system of medicine ; the remote, if not 
 the immediate, cause of more important fundamental 
 changes in the practice of the healing art than have 
 resulted from any since the days of Galen himself. 
 He was undoubtedly a man of genius and a scholar ; 
 a man of indefatigable industry and dauntless 
 energy." 
 
 John Syre Bristowe, M. D., in an address before 
 the British Medical Association, speaks of Hahne- 
 mann as follows : "That he had learning and ability 
 and the power of reasoning is abundantly clear. He 
 saw through the prevalent therapeutic absurdities 
 and impostures of the day ; he laughed to scorn the 
 complicated and loathsome nostrums, which even at 
 that time disgraced the pharmacopoeias ; and he ex- 
 posed with no little skill and success the emptiness 
 and worthlessness of most of the therapeutical sys- 
 tems which then and theretofore prevailed." Valen- 
 tine Mott, the pride of American surgery, visited 
 Hahnemann, and this is his testimony : "Hahne- 
 mann is one of the most accomplished and scientific 
 physicians of the present age." Hufeland referred 
 to him as "one of the most distinguished German 
 physicians," and Jean Paul Richter denominated 
 him "a prodigy of learning." 
 
 Many other instances might be quoted to show 
 that Hahnemann was the peer of any of his time in 
 medical learning; moreover, he was a philosopher, 
 one who was not only a thinker himself, but who 
 also taught others how to think and how to investi- 
 gate. Such was the Founder of Homoeopathy, the 
 Leader of the Great Medical Reformation of the 
 Nineteenth Century. 
 
 Medical Science in Hahnemann's Student Days. 
 
 The state of medical science at the beginning of 
 the century just past, especially in the field of thera- 
 peutics, was in a chaotic and unsatisfactory state. 
 The writers of that time were universal in their con- 
 demnatory verdicts and showed that a rational and 
 scientific therapeutics did not then exist. The fol- 
 lowing are a few of the opinions enunciated by the 
 medical fathers of the period : Bichat, the illustrious 
 
 43 
 
physiologist, makes this humiliating confession : 
 "The Materia Medica is naught but a conglomera- 
 tion of erroneous ideas." Sir Astley Cooper de- 
 clares: "The art of medicine is founded on con- 
 jecture and improved by murder." Cullen, whose 
 Materia Medica was translated by Hahnemann, 
 says: "Our Materia Medicas are fi!led with innu- 
 merable false deductions." Girtanner, a very great 
 authority of the eighteenth century, writes : "Our 
 Materia Medica is nothing but an industrious col- 
 lection of the delusive observations that physicians 
 have made in all ages." Dr. Kruger Hanson, a no 
 mean authority, says: "Medicine, as is now practic- 
 ed, is a pestilence to mankind ; it has carried off a 
 greater number of victims than all the murderous 
 wars have ever done." 
 
 A Pew Recent Opinions. 
 
 Dr. Claude Bernard, the great French physiolo- 
 gist, candidly confesses "Scientific medicine does not 
 exist." Oliver Wendell Holmes showed his distrust 
 of prevailing medicine by saying: "If all the drugs 
 were cast into the sea it would be so much the bet- 
 ter for men, and so much the worse for the fish." 
 Dr. Quain, editor of the Dictionary of Medicine, 
 in an address to the British Medical Association in 
 1873, says: "Alas! our means of curing disease do 
 not make equally rapid progress. This is not as 
 some assert, because disease cannot be cured; it is 
 simply because our knowledge of remedies is defi- 
 cient." Thus therapeutic impotency is admitted by 
 the fair-minded leaders of the dominant school and 
 by the professors in its own medical colleges. All 
 this would seem to be an acknowledgment that this 
 school is powerless to cure disease. 
 
 The Reformation. 
 
 Hahnemann himself was impressed thoroughly 
 with the inefficiency of medicine in disease ; dis- 
 gusted with his results he abandoned practice and 
 devoted himself to earning a livelihood by trans- 
 lating books from other languages into German. 
 It was while translating Cullen's Materia Medica 
 from the English that he was struck with 
 the unsatisfactory explanation given by Cullen of 
 the cure of ague with Cinchona bark. The happy 
 idea occurred to him to test the effect of the baric 
 
 44 
 
on the healthy human body. His own words are as 
 follows : 
 
 "For sake of experiment I took for several days 
 four drachms of good Cinchona bark twice a day ; 
 my feet, finger tips, etc., first grew cold. I became 
 exhausted and s'eepy; then my heart began to pal- 
 pitate, my pulse became hard and rapid. I had an 
 intolerable anxiety, trembling, prostration in all my 
 limbs; then throbbing of the head, flushing of the 
 cheeks, thirst, and, in short, all the ordinary symp- 
 toms of intermittent fever appeared one after an- 
 other, but without febrile rigor. In a word, even 
 the special characteristic symptoms of intermittent 
 fever, dullness of the senses, a kind of stiffness of 
 all the joints, and in particular the disagreeable 
 numb sensation, apparently located in the periosteal 
 covering of all the bones of the body, made their ap- 
 pearance. The paroxysms lasted two or three hours 
 each time and returned when I repeated the dose, 
 otherwise not." 
 
 As the fall of the apple conveyed to the profound 
 and sagacious philosopher Newton the idea of the 
 law of gravitation, so the physiological effects of 
 Cinchona bark conveyed to the mind of the philo- 
 sophical Hahnemann the general law of cure by 
 which diseases are to be encountered. 
 
 The law of gravitation had existed before New- 
 ton, the law of cure had existed before Hahnemann, 
 even the older writers, Hippocrates, Paracelsus, 
 Galen and Stoerck, were at times close upon it, but 
 it remained for Hahnemann to demonstrate it, which 
 he proceeded at once to do, and after six years of 
 experiment spent in testing medicines upon the 
 healthy human body to determine their exact ef- 
 fects, years also devoted to observing the result 
 of these experiments at the bedside, he published 
 to the world in an old school medical magazine the 
 law of similia similibus curentur "Let Likes Be 
 Treated By Likes," the universal law which is ap- 
 plicable to the treatment of disease. 
 
 This "law of similars," as it is familiarly called, 
 is in harmony with all nature. Likes beget likes, 
 likes are drawn unto likes, a smile begets a smile, a 
 frown begets a frown. Like sounds produce har- 
 mony, unlike sounds produce discord ; and harmony, 
 not discord, brings sweet temper, appetite and good 
 
 45 
 
digestion. Sunlight brings good cheer, darkness 
 brings despondency, and so throughout the realm 
 of nature the law of likes is ever uppermost. 
 
 The enunciation of this law was brought about 
 after long years of patient toil and research by its 
 founder; it is not a mere passing fad, a laboratory 
 deduction heralded today, doubted tomorrow and 
 discarded after a wondrous nine-day life. Its cham- 
 pion was not one to court an evanescent fame by 
 rushing blindly into print. He was sure of his 
 ground and he spent six years of toil and privation 
 in prosecuting his researches. Sphinx, pyramid and 
 obelisk will become worn away by the desert sands ; 
 amphitheatre, parthenon and temple will melt in the 
 glowing heat of the sun; feudal castles, moss-cov- 
 ered and ivy-grown, erected to commemorate knight- 
 ly deeds of chivalry, will crumble to dust; even 
 Homoeopathy itself may lose its name, but the 
 immutable law of cure, similia similibus curentur, 
 resting on the rock of truth, will last forever. 
 
 What Is Homoeopathy ? 
 
 Homoeopathy may therefore be defined as the 
 science of therapeutics based on nature's law for 
 healing. It is the science of the selection of a remedy 
 that causes, in the healthy, effects similar to those 
 for which it is employed in disease. The methodical 
 testing of drugs on the healthy was first done by 
 Hahnemann ; he saw at once the fallacy of obtaining 
 a knowledge of drug action by testing upon animals, 
 knowing that the effects of medicines vary accord- 
 ing to the animal experimented upon. Thus it is 
 known that rabbits will eat Belladonna leaves, pigs 
 will eat of Ntix vomica freely, hogs and horses will 
 eat Aconite, all of which substances are poisonous 
 to man. We know, too, that drugs affect different 
 animals differently, thus Ipecac is an emetic to man 
 and dogs, but not to rabbits. Conium will poison 
 the horse, but not the ox. Hence the necessity of 
 testing drugs on the healthy human body to deter- 
 mine their rightful actions. This testing must be 
 done singly, for to obtain the pure action of a drug 
 it must be administered singly and alone, unmixed 
 with any other substance. If tested singly surely it 
 must be given singly. If given singly there is not 
 the necessity for so large a dose, and this has led to 
 
the small doses of the system, for it is reasonable to 
 suppose and experience verifies the supposition that 
 a single drug acts better when uninterfered with by 
 any other substance, and so polypharmacy is no part 
 of Homoeopathy. Again, it has been found that the 
 dose repetition is not needed so frequently. There- 
 fore to recapitulate the fundamental features of 
 Homoeopathy we say: 
 
 First. Disease is manifested by its symptoms all 
 the symptoms or, by what we term the totality of 
 the symptoms of a given case. 
 
 Second. Knowledge of drug action must be ob- 
 tained by experimentation upon the healthy human 
 body, and this has been largely done for us by the 
 early workers in the school. 
 
 Third. The curative relation between these two 
 sets of phenomena is by virtue of the "law of 
 similars" or similia similibus curentur. 
 
 Fourth. The selected remedy should be adminis- 
 tered singly, uncombined with any other; hence the 
 doctrine of the single remedy. 
 
 Fifth. It should be given in the smallest doses 
 that will cure; hence the minimum dose. 
 
 Sixth. As enough is sufficient the dose should not 
 be unnecessarily repeated. 
 
 All these topics are capable of a wide expansion 
 and homoeopathic physicians are familiar with all 
 their phases. 
 
 Homoeopathy therefore is a general fact, a 
 principle or law of nature ; it is a practical fact ; it 
 stands upon its comparative merits ; it is simple and 
 intelligible; it gains by comparison; it is a medical 
 treatment for all time and applicable to all forms of 
 disease, new as well as old. It is a practical guide, a 
 guide to the choice of medicine, not of the dose. It 
 aims to eradicate or permanently cure disease. It 
 economizes the vital forces. It is gentle and agree- 
 able. It administers one remedy at a time. It is 
 applicable to acute as well as to chronic diseases. 
 It is ever prepa'red to meet any new form of sick- 
 ness, and by it a physician is enabled to treat dis- 
 eases that he never saw or heard described. It car- 
 ries out in detail what all medicine does in general 
 It is the only system that includes the three great 
 divisions of therapeutics, namely, preventive medi- 
 cine, palliative medicine and curative medicine. 
 
 47 
 
While curative medicine is its specialty, preventive 
 medicine always and palliative medicine only when 
 no harm may be inflicted by the agencies is employ- 
 ed. Homoeopathy's principles will stand the test of 
 scientific inquiry, her methods will bear the critical 
 investigations in fact, these are invited. 
 
 What Homoeopathy Is Not. 
 
 Homoeopathy is not an irregular practice; it is 
 founded upon a law. Twenty physicians were once 
 called upon to prescribe for a case of illness. 
 The same symptoms were detailed to each. Ten 
 were homoeopathic physicians, and all prescribed the 
 same remedy. Eight of the ten allopaths prescribed 
 forty-two different medicines, in which no two pre- 
 scriptions were alike. The other two did not re- 
 spond to the invitation, preferring not to exhibit 
 their therapeutic "regularity." 
 
 Homoeopathy is not unscientific practice. It is 
 not opposed to pathology; it regards pathology, but 
 not as a basis for treatment ; it recognizes that a sys- 
 tem of medicine founded on the shifting sands of pa- 
 thology cannot be scientific. It is not the "little pills." 
 Homoeopathy was a working system long before lit- 
 tle pills were invented; they are simply convenient 
 vehicles for the pleasant administration of medi- 
 cines. It is .not quackery; quackery is secret and 
 Homoeopathy is open to the world and courts the 
 fullest investigation of physician, student and pa- 
 tron. It is willing to stand upon its merits, and it 
 always gains by comparison. It is not a treatment 
 according to fashion, now anodynes, now germi- 
 cides, now serums, now blue glass, now creosote, 
 now sulphuretted hydrogen, now anti-toxines. The 
 popular panacea of today, speeding to oblivion sup- 
 ported only by the ephemeral theories of pathology, 
 is no part of it. Its progress consists in a develop- 
 ment of its Materia Medica and a better understand- 
 ing of disease. It is not a faith cure ; Homoeopathy, 
 it is acknowledged, is eminently successful in chil- 
 dren's diseases, and in childhood the faith element is 
 small; also, it is successful in the treatment of 
 animals, and here faith is wanting. While faith and 
 hope in all cases of illness conduce to recovery, and 
 are therefore most desirable, they are no more essen- 
 tial to homoeopathic practice than they are to any 
 
other medical system. It is not an uncertainty ; 
 those who have tried it at the bedside know this bet- 
 ter than those whose knowledge is obtained from its 
 antagonists. It is not an infinitesimal dose; this is 
 a popular misconception fostered diligently and per- 
 haps ignorantly by the opponents of our system. 
 Similia similibus curentur says nothing of the dose. 
 A homoeopathic cure may be, and is, often wrought 
 with the massive doses of allopathy. Experience, 
 however, shows that small doses act better and with 
 less shock to the system. It is not magic, though 
 cures made by it would almost seem to border there- 
 on, nor is it mysterious, nor a popular delusion, nor 
 mesmerism, nor mental healing. 
 
 By Homoeopathy it is not meant, for example, as 
 our opponents assert to ridicule us, that if a man be 
 poisoned he must take more poison; that to remove 
 a sliver from the finger another must be introduced; 
 that to. cure a burn one must thrust the burnt part 
 into the fire; that to drink on if one has drunk too 
 much; nor to strike the place that was struck; nor 
 to swallow a tape worm to remove one. These in- 
 terpretations of Homoeopathy and of our law were 
 written with the finger of ignorance upon the ragged 
 page of prejudice, and we stoop not to notice them 
 further. 
 
 What Is a Homoeopathic Physician ? 
 
 The definition adopted by our national organiza- 
 tion is as follows : "A homoeopathic physician is one 
 who adds to his knowledge of medicine a special 
 knowledge of homoeopathic therapeutics and ob- 
 serves the law of similia. All that pertains to the 
 great field of medical learning is his, by tradition, 
 by inheritance, by right." Thus a homoeopathic 
 physician possesses everything that is possessed by 
 allopathic physicians, and in addition thereto the 
 science of therapeutics. Who would be a physician 
 lacking this accomplishment? 
 
 Says a writer in one of our principal periodicals: 
 "We of the homoeopathic profession are the col- 
 leagues of the old school whether they will or no; 
 we study the same books ; read the same periodicals ; 
 discuss the same questions from the same view- 
 points in our medical conventions and at our fire- 
 sides; their bacteria are our bacteria; their germi- 
 
 49 
 
cides are our germicides; their protozoa are our 
 protozoa ; their toxines are our toxines ; their pallia- 
 tives are our palliatives, and their surgery is our 
 surgery. Only in therapeutics do we differ." Here 
 Homoeopathy particularizes while allopathy general- 
 izes. For instance, a number of children are ill with 
 a common disease; the allopathic doctor will give 
 them all the same remedy, while the Homoeopath pre- 
 scribes according to individualities; he recognizes 
 the fact that no two different temperaments can be 
 sick in exactly the same way; that, for instance, 
 while pneumonia is pneumonia, it affects different 
 individuals differently. Nothing in Homoeopathy 
 is routine or haphazard. 
 
 Homoeopathy Enables Us to Prevent the Development of 
 Disease. 
 
 All homoeopathic physicians are familiar with the 
 power of remedies in preventing the full develop- 
 ment of disease ; it was found long ago that cholera 
 could be prevented; that very many acute diseases, 
 such as colds in the head or the starting of a sore 
 throat, can be prevented at the onset. That these 
 would go on to a full development and require many 
 days in their cure without the proper homoeopathic 
 treatment is also well known. 
 
 The Duration of Disease Is Shortened Under Homoeopathy. 
 
 In nearly all text-books on the practice of medi- 
 cine one will find a regular course of duration of 
 most acute diseases set down, a course which a 
 typical case of the malady is supposed to run; thus 
 typhoid fever has a usual course of four weeks and 
 then comes the period that is termed "convales- 
 cence," and this is oftentimes longer than the dis- 
 ease itself. Whooping cough is one of the diseases 
 to which is assigned a usual run ; also, mumps, scar- 
 let fever, etc. The course of these diseases is much 
 shorter under homoeopathic treatment, which mani- 
 fold statistics prove; this means a saving of work- 
 ing days for the bread-earner and a lessening of 
 anxiety in the household. Under Homoeopathy the 
 duration of acute diseases is reduced from one-half 
 to one-third that occupied by any other medical 
 treatment. There is little or no time wasted in con- 
 valescence. Our remedies go straight to the dis- 
 eased part ; do not disturb other organs or functions, 
 
 50 
 
and when the diseased part is well the patient is well. 
 Under allopathic treatment the idea is to entice the 
 disease to healthy parts in the hope that these healthy 
 parts will succeed in throwing it off ; if this is ac- 
 complished, there are a lot of tired organs and 
 tissues to rest and regain their power, and this is 
 what is meant by "convalescence" or the getting- 
 well- period. There are people whose vocation 
 necessitates a daily appearance ; for instance, opera 
 singers and theatrical performers; these have long 
 ago learned the saving of time and engagements by 
 the use of Homoeopathy. 
 
 The Economical Side of Homoeopathy/ 
 
 There are those who fancy that homoeopathic phy- 
 sicians are higher priced than those of the other 
 schools. It is a universally accepted fact that the 
 best is always the cheapest in the end, especially in 
 commercial fields, and this idea should certainly pre- 
 vail in the field of medicine. The homoeopathic phy- 
 sician Has a right to charge more, for the reason that 
 he dispenses his own medicines, but it is found that 
 his charges are fully fifty per cent, less than the com- 
 bined charges of the old school physician and the 
 druggist. Druggist's bills are proverbially high and 
 long ; on the other hand, homoeopathic medicines are 
 comparatively inexpensive. 
 
 This question of the cost is well shown in homoeo- 
 pathic institutions throughout the country, where the 
 cost of medicines is not one-half that of the hos- 
 pitals and institutions of the other school. As an 
 example of this, take the case of the Protestant Half- 
 Orphan Asylum in New York. It was under allo- 
 pathic control for seven years, and the cost of the 
 medicines was two hundred and forty dollars. It was 
 then under homoeopathic control for ten years, and 
 thirty-five dollars only was expended for drugs, and 
 this is the usual proportion in the institutions of each 
 school. Homoeopathy has a great advantage over 
 allopathy financially, in that many families can treat 
 themselves for the simple ailments, and with perfect 
 safety. For, as has been shown, many diseases may 
 be prevented or their course greatly shortened by the 
 timely administration of the proper remedy, and the 
 prescribing of which is no secret art or special diffi- 
 culty. Though medicine is hemmed in by absurd 
 
laws to protect the people, who, by the way, have 
 never asked this protection (it was the doctors 
 themselves that wanted it), there is as yet no law to 
 prevent a person doctoring himself, and this can 
 certainly be done more safely by the homoeopathic 
 method. 
 
 Another thing that Homoeopathy does is to eradi- 
 cate the tendency to disease, and thus professional 
 visits are reduced in number to the benefit of the 
 purse. Fewer visits are as a rule required in Homoeo- 
 pathy, for the giving of strong doses, as is practiced 
 by the other school, necessitates frequent visits in 
 order to watch the action of the drug. 
 
 What Homoeopathy Has Done. 
 
 It has abolished bleeding, and bleeding was the 
 accepted treatment of all diseases for a number of 
 years after the introduction of Homoeopathy. A 
 book was written on the subject as late as 1835, and 
 the operation was in full sway in 1848. In 1860 
 physicians bled for scarlet fever, and in 1876 for 
 pneumonia, but today it is not done even in apoplexy, 
 the last disease in which it was given up. 
 
 It has abolished leeches. In 1856 about 800,000 
 leeches were imported into New York, and one com- 
 mercial house was almost wholly devoted to that 
 traffic. Today the song of the leech is heard no 
 more in the land. 
 
 It has reduced the death rate in cholera from fifty 
 per cent, to fifteen; yellow fever from eighteen per 
 cent, to six per cent. ; peritonitis from thirty-two to 
 seven per cent., and erysipelas from eight to one 
 per cent. It has robbed pneumonia of its terrors 
 and reduced its death rate from twenty-four to six 
 per cent. Scarlet fever has no frightful mortality 
 under its beneficent treatment, and the scarlet flag 
 of warning is seldom changed into the black flag of 
 death. It has robbed the sick room of the dangefs 
 of poisonous drugs, and hence drug habits under 
 homoeopathic treatment are unknown. Diphtheria 
 is far more amenable to homoeopathic methods; even 
 the claimed improvement by antitoxine, which pos- 
 sibly is a crude form of Homoeopathy, does not ap- 
 proach our results. It has instituted investigations 
 never before scientifically and accurately under- 
 taken which have been of incalculable benefit to hu- 
 
 52 
 
inanity. It has widened the field of application of 
 drugs to disease by these investigations to an al- 
 most undreamed of extent. 
 
 It has not only reduced the mortality of our most 
 virulent diseases, but it has cut down the death rate 
 in our institutions in a marvellous manner. In Cook 
 County, 111., Hospital, the great Chicago hospital 
 where allopaths, eclectics and Homoeopaths have rep- 
 resentation, the ratio of mortality is decidedly in 
 favor of Homoeopathy ; next best is the eclectic sys- 
 tem, and least favorable the allopathic, which lost 
 twice as many as the homoeopathic, and thirty per 
 cent, more than the eclectics, and their patients spend 
 twice as many days in the hospitals as ours. In 
 Melbourne, Australia, the death rate of typhoid fever 
 in an epidemic a few years ago was thirty to fifteen 
 cent. in*the allopathic hospital and nine per cent, in 
 the homoeopathic hospital. The mortality in the 
 three leading hospitals of New York city the first 
 year the large homoeopathic hospital was organized 
 was as follows : Bellevue Hospital, 12^2 per cent. ; 
 Charity Ffospital 8^2 per cent. ; Homoeopathic Hos- 
 pital, 6 per cent. 
 
 Statistics might be quoted to an almost endless 
 extent showing that the mortality under ho- 
 moeopathic treatment is five to fifty per cent, 
 less than under any other system of medicine. Those 
 who are interested in this question will find further 
 data in the little work by Dr. T. L. Bradford, of 
 Philadelphia, recently published, entitled "The Logic 
 of Figures," from which much of the foregoing is 
 taken. 
 
 The Growth of Homoeopathy. 
 
 Oliver Wendell Holmes was a scholar, a delight- 
 ful poet and doubtless a good physician, but when 
 he turned his hand to prophecy he made a dismal 
 failure. He prophesized the death of Homoeopathy 
 in a prophetic article written in 1848. At the 
 threshold of the twentieth century there are more 
 institutions, hospitals, public and private, in the 
 United States than there were practicing physicians 
 of Homoeopathy in 1848. Professor Holmes lived to 
 realize his prophetic failure. 
 
 In 1875 there was established in the University of 
 Michigan a homoeopathic department. Michigan 
 
 53 
 
was the first of our States not only to recognize the 
 claims of the new school, but also that the taxpayers 
 who supported State medicine, many of whom, and 
 especially of the better and thinking class, should not 
 contribute alone to-the education of physicians of a 
 school in which they had no faith. About that time 
 there was much bitterness shown our school, not by 
 the people nor the authorities, but by the physicians 
 of the dominant school. 
 
 A physician who was practicing in a town of 
 Southwestern Missouri, and a graduate of the old 
 school department of that university, wrote a letter 
 to the "Detroit Review" bemoaning the disgrace of 
 admitting Homoeopathy to the university. He stated 
 in his communication that Homoeopathy was dead in 
 his part of the country ; that there was 'only one 
 homoeopathic physician within a radius of one hun- 
 dred miles from his town, and that he was on his 
 last legs. He said that he felt like turning his diploma 
 with the face toward the wall because of the. in- 
 dignity thus brought upon his Alma Mater. Today 
 the number of homoeopathic physicians within a 
 radius of one hundred miles from this town has in- 
 creased over three thousand two hundred per cent., 
 and it is far from being a populous community. 
 
 Ever since Homoeopathy was promulgated it has 
 been declared either dead or dying, but somehow or 
 other, like Banquo's -ghost, it will not down. 
 
 During the last two decades of the nineteenth 
 century the growth of Homoeopathy has been com- 
 mensurate with that of any previous period. Let us 
 compare briefly the status of the school in 1880 and 
 in 1900: 
 
 In 1880 there was one national homoeopathic 
 body ; in 1900, ten. 
 
 In 1880 there were twenty-three State societies; 
 in 1900, thirty-four. 
 
 In 1880 there were ninety-nine local societies and 
 homoeopathic clubs ; in 1900, one hundred and fifty. 
 
 In 1880 there were eleven homoeopathic colleges; 
 in 1900, twenty-two. 
 
 In 1880 there were sixteen homoeopathic jour- 
 nals ; in 1900, thirty- three. 
 
 In 1880 there were thirty-eight general homoeo- 
 pathic hospitals ; in 1900, seventy-six. 
 
 54 
 
In 1880 there were thirty dispensaries; in 1900, 
 sixty-three. 
 
 In addition to this there are about two hundred 
 and fifty private hospitals and sanitariums devoted 
 to the treatment of patients by the homoeopathic 
 method. Thus it is seen that there has been a doub- 
 ling of these figures all along the line in the past 
 twenty years. 
 
 The Persecutions of Homoeopathy. 
 
 . Every reform must be baptized in the waters of 
 tribulation before it will be received by the public. 
 As Homoeopathy was the only innovation that ever 
 invaded the medical field it was not to be expected 
 that it should escape the fate of all advanced ideas. 
 "It is not in Jerusalem alone that the prophets are 
 stoned." The abolition of polypharmacy and the 
 revenues from prescriptions first incited the drug- 
 gists to revolt against the system, and they expended 
 their wrath upon the founder. In later years the 
 success of its practitioners over those of the domi- 
 nant school excited the bitterest jealousy, and many 
 unkind words have been spoken on each side even 
 while both are honestly endeavoring to achieve the 
 physical regeneration of man. New truths have al- 
 ways been persecuted: When Peruvian bark was 
 introduced it was denominated a deadly sin to take 
 it; anaesthesia met with similar opposition; Harvey, 
 the discoverer of the circulation of the blood, was 
 considered a mad man ; when the stethoscope was 
 introduced it was condemned, a physician of that 
 period saying in ridicule thereof, "My ear is not 
 fine enough to hear the grass grow;" when per- 
 cussion of the chest was suggested as a means of 
 diagnosis it was likened unto rapping on the outside 
 of a bottle of wine to determine its quality ; Galileo 
 uttered a blasphemy when he said, "E pur si 
 muove ;" Olympic laughter greeted the steamboat ; 
 a "Coo" was on the track of the locomotive ; the dis- 
 covery of vaccination by Jenner was received with 
 ridicule and contempt; Daguerre was dubbed a 
 lunatic for discovering photography ; even, the hum- 
 ble potato upon its introduction into Scotland was 
 violently denounced as unholy because not referred 
 to in the Bible. Homceopathists have been called 
 magicians of the school of Zoroaster, more skillful 
 
 55 
 
charmers than Circe or Medea, more dexterous than 
 Cagliostro or Houdin. Homoeopathy has been no 
 exception to the fate of great reforms. 
 
 Arguments Against Homoeopathy. 
 
 The arguments against Homoeopathy from the 
 earliest time have been chiefly furnished by those 
 who have never investigated it, or whose knowledge 
 of it has been derived from the writers of previous 
 denunciations. 
 
 These so-called arguments have been bitter, and 
 such terms as "homoeopathic quackery," "renegades," 
 "absurdity," "delusion," "assassin," "monstrosity," 
 "odious system," "disgusting practice," "loathsome 
 remedies," "fraud," "humbug," etc., gives evidence 
 of their kind. Vituperation is even still used by the 
 professors in some of the allopathic colleges. We 
 could refer to one who always speaks of Homoe- 
 opathy as "pseudo-medicine." These are the 
 weapons of those whose prejudice prevents their try- 
 ing the system, and by the way it takes no small 
 amount of mental acumen to try the system intelli- 
 gently. It is not learned in a day. Like all the true 
 sciences it is exact, but difficult. Those who claim 
 to practice both ways are those who are in business 
 "for revenue only," and their knowledge of Homoe- 
 opathy is often as crude as is their knowledge of 
 medicine in general. They are the "Docs" of the 
 profession. 
 
 The following from the Philadelphia Medical 
 Journal of as late a date as March, 1900, shows that 
 the "arguments" against Homoeopathy continue: 
 
 "The downright scoundrels, the out-and-out nos- 
 trum traders, the sectarians, are treated by us as the 
 prairie wolf and tramp dogs, the solitary elephants, 
 the forest cats, etc., are treated by their brethren. 
 We expel them, and they are known as enemies for- 
 ever. Of course they continue to use the education 
 stolen from the profession, and their knowledge of 
 civilized life, to commit depredations on their former 
 masters." This is in accord with regular ethics. 
 This is from an editorial; is it a wonder that the 
 editor was soon removed from his position? 
 
 A recent writer against Homoeopathy gave seven 
 lines from one of our chief works, Hahnemann's 
 Organon, a book of 300 pages, to furnish his read- 
 
 56 
 
ers with an "example of its style." Could one judge 
 of the style of the Bible by selecting the first seven 
 lines of the Gospel of Matthew as a sample. 
 
 Is Homoeopathy Sectarian Medicine ? 
 
 Sectarians we are in the same sense that a man 
 may be a Christian and yet a protestant, an Ameri- 
 can citizen and. yet a republican, a physician and yet 
 a Homoeopath. Sectarianism is the offspring of 
 originality and the guardian of progress. 
 
 We are accused of trading on a name as if sec- 
 tarianism was fanaticism. The apostle Paul was 
 accused of belonging to the hated sect of Nazarenes. 
 Josephus styled the Christians a sect. We are coolly 
 asked to abandon the name, as England asked the 
 early colonists to abandon their ideas of freedom. 
 "True sectarianism," says Helmuth, "is compatible 
 with the highest degree of learning ; whilst it is firm 
 for the preservation of rights, it has the greatest 
 toleration for the opinions of others. In fact, I 
 might say throughout the world, in theology and in 
 medicine, sectarianism is the authorized expression 
 of doctrine, the definite intellectual expression of 
 belief. I hold that if sectarianism had been a bar 
 to its progress medicine today would be an incon- 
 gruous mass of poorly ascertained facts; for, from 
 the time that the sons of Hippocrates founded the 
 dogmatists to the period when the allopathic school 
 forced the Homoeopaths to become sectarian, the his- 
 tory of medicine is the history of sects, all having 
 more or less influence upon the progress of medical 
 science; nay, more, the majority of the illustrious 
 leaders whose names have descended to our times as 
 acknowledged fathers in medicine were sectarians." 
 
 No Homoeopathic Representation. 
 
 It has been said that we have no representation 
 in the armies and navies of the world, nor in na- 
 tional medical service, nor in railway or steamship 
 employment, nor in life insurance companies as ex- 
 aminers, nor in city, county, or State institutions. 
 Furthermore it has been declared that the homoeo- 
 pathic school is not recognized by scientific societies 
 at home or abroad, and that it has made no advance- 
 ment in scientific knowledge since its foundation. 
 All these statements are false. In the late war with 
 Spain nine of our surgeons were in service, three 
 
 57 
 
with the rank of major. Many homoeopathic phy- 
 sicians and surgeons are connected with railway 
 medical service, with insurance companies as ex- 
 aminers. Many United States pension examiners 
 are Homoeopaths. There are eight homoeopathic 
 hospitals for the insane under State control and 
 their records are emphatically in favor of our system. 
 Three State universities have homoeopathic depart- 
 ments, Two city universities and one other have ho- 
 moeopathic schools conected with them. As to our 
 scientific investigations, that we have made them, no 
 further evidence is necessary than to point to the in- 
 stances wherein the old school has appropriated our 
 remedies and the uses of them as derived from our 
 investigations in corpore sano. 
 
 Inroads of the Dominant School in Homoeopathic Drug 
 Employment. 
 
 The use of Aconite by the old school is compara- 
 tively recent, but the drug was used by Hahnemann 
 three-quarters of a century ago for the same indica- 
 tions that it furnishes today. Hahnemann, one hun- 
 dred years ago, suggested Belladonna for the same 
 uses to which it has been applied during the past two 
 decades. Phillips, a few years ago, in a work on 
 Materia Medica, speaks of Rhus in paralysis; we 
 have used it since 1816. He gave Bryonia anew to 
 the world. We knew it and used it in 1816. Cu- 
 prum is a new remedy of the old school ; we used it 
 in 1805; tne same is true of Pulsatilla, Camphor, 
 Ledum, Thuja, Cannabis, Euphrasia and many 
 others. The use of Castor old, Magnesia sul- 
 phurica and Podophyllum in dysentery; Mercurius 
 cyanatus in diphtheria ; Gelsemium in colds ; Hama- 
 melis in haemorrhoids; Phosphorus in pneumonia 
 and fatty degeneration ; Lycopodium in uric acid de- 
 posits in the urine ; Apis mellifica, or the poison of 
 the honey bee, in rheumatism, are among the allo- 
 pathic "finds" of the last twenty years. For these 
 affections Homoeopaths have used the same remedies 
 for over fifty years, and in many instances a hun- 
 dred years. The poison of the rattlesnake is just 
 now proving a great remedy in cases of the bubonic 
 plague in India, our own Crotalus, seventy-five 
 years old ! This is the very genius of Homoeopathy. 
 
Bacteriological Therapeutics. 
 
 The late Rudolf Virchow, one of the greatest 
 medical men whom science has produced, announc- 
 ed a short time before his death that modern bac- 
 teriological therapeutics rested on a homoeopathic 
 basis. The same may perhaps be said of antitoxine ; 
 of the Pasteur treatment for hydrophobia ; of vacci- 
 nation or the treatment of tuberculosis by tuberculin 
 or neuclein. While these methods have not been 
 generally approved by homoeopathic physicians be- 
 cause irregular in their genesis, it is a source of 
 satisfaction that the very acme of old school scien- 
 tific research verifies our principles. We cannot, 
 however, close our eyes to the fact that many bac- 
 teriological practices are steeped with commercial in- 
 terests. The pharmaceutical laboratories do as much, 
 if not more, to further the use of these various sub- 
 stances than physicians themselves, yet it would 
 seem that even the latter are not guiltless. "Behring 
 has patented his diphtheria antitoxine serum on the 
 continent ; Koch for years has made a princely 
 royalty out of his lymph ; little Denmark has 
 boomed her butter trade through tuberculin." Neu- 
 clein comes high, and the profession would seem 
 to be on the search always for some revenue produc- 
 ing serum, or some "gusher" of a toxin well. 
 
 Achievements of Hahnemann. 
 
 No better summary of the achievements of Hahne- 
 mann exist than the following written by the late 
 Dr. Selden H. Talcott, superintendent of the Mid- 
 dletown State Hospital, New York : 
 
 "i. He portrayed the true nature of disease and 
 described it as a disturbance of vital force. 
 
 "2. He enunciated the law of similars embodied in 
 the doctrine, 'similia similibus curentur,' a law 
 on which scientific medicine is inevitably based. 
 
 "3. He inaugurated the plan of proving drugs up- 
 on the healthy before using them as medicines for 
 the sick. 
 
 "4. He discarded polypharmacy as unscientific. 
 
 "5. He adopted the plan of using the single renv 
 edy for the safe and speedy cure of disease. 
 
 "6. He made war against bleeding, blistering", 
 purging, administering emetics and all forms of un- 
 necessary depletion. 
 
 59 
 
"7- He defined medicine in a manner comprehen- 
 sive enough for all time. In his Lesser Writings 
 he states : 'A knowledge of disease, a knowledge of 
 remedies and a knowledge of their employment (that 
 is for the cure of disease) constitutes medicine. That 
 definition has not yet been improved upon. 
 
 "8. He reduced the size of the dose until all dan- 
 ger of aggravation from the drug was removed. He 
 proved the possibility of successful treatment by the 
 administration of medicines in minute quantities, 
 and when the fact was determined there was a 
 gradual abandonment of the 'kill or cure' doses of 
 the ancients." 
 
 The Advantages of Homoeopathy. 
 
 The advantages of Homoeopathy to the physician 
 may be thus summed up : 
 
 1. The emancipation of his mind from doubt and 
 confusion. 
 
 2. The provision of a guide. 
 
 3. The simplicity of the means. 
 
 The advantages to the patient may also be thus 
 summed up : 
 
 1. The banishment of nauseous drugs, painful and 
 debilitating measures. 
 
 2. Greatly increased efficacy and success. 
 
 3. Deliverance from medicinal diseases and other 
 destructive consequences of former methods of 
 treatment requiring months and years to eradicate. 
 
 We quote the following from a prominent writer 
 on Homoeopathy: "Homoeopathy fills no insane 
 asylums with drug wrecks ; she populates no alms- 
 houses with mercurial sufferers ; she inhabits no 
 dens with morphine fiends; she infests no human 
 frames with the awful disasters of the hundreds of 
 drugs that might be named ; she vagarizes no brain 
 with the fanciful visions and vicious tremens of 
 cocaine and alcohol. She comes to save, not to de- 
 stroy. She comes to cure, not to palliate." What 
 further advantages could appeal' more forcibly to a 
 patient than these? 
 
 Our Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. 
 
 Our institutions of learning are the pride of 
 Homoeopathy in this country. Our colleges are 
 located in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Balti- 
 more, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Ann Arbor, Detroit, 
 
 60 
 
Minneapolis, Chicago, Iowa City, St. Louis, Louis- 
 ville, Kansas City, Denver and San Francisco. It is 
 one of our proud boasts that our school has ever been 
 in the lead of medical education. The first college 
 to establish a three years' compulsory course in 
 medicine was a homoeopathic college, and it ante- 
 dated this feature of old school instruction by 
 twelve years. A four years' course is now compul- 
 sory in all our colleges, and the sessions have been 
 lengthened to eight and nine months in many of 
 them with a minimum requirement of seven months. 
 Three of our colleges are connected with State uni- 
 versities, three are connected with other universi- 
 ties. Our laboratory facilities are equal, and in 
 many instances superior to those of the majority 
 of the old school teaching institutions. Our clinical 
 facilities are represented in large hospitals connect- 
 ed with all of our colleges. There is an esprit de 
 corps among our students not found elsewhere, and 
 the classes being smaller than old school institu- 
 tions students are brought into closer relationship 
 with faculties and with patients. 
 
 Our teaching of the elementary branches of 
 anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physiological chem- 
 istry, hygiene and sanitary science is in the most 
 capable hands. It is said of us that we pay little at- 
 tention to the subjects of bacteriology, pathology 
 and diagnosis. Nothing could be further from the 
 truth. Our teaching in these branches is all that is 
 taught in. any medical institution of the country, and 
 far beyond this; our bacteriological studies extend 
 beyond the mere study of the subject; we make this 
 important topic pay a rich tribute to our knowledge 
 of drug action in the treatment of disease. Pathology, 
 while it does not form a foundation for our thera- 
 peutics, is studied in its ever-changing features and 
 helps to further our understanding of disease and 
 thus pays tribute to the common aim of our system, 
 namely, to cure disease. Diagnosis is not studied 
 with us to merely distinguish one affection from an- 
 other, but as a means of remedy selection ; we make 
 diagnosis of value to the patient, not merely a satis- 
 faction to the physician, and so throughout the 
 vast field of medical learning. In most of our col- 
 leges women are admitted on equal terms with men, 
 and in New York we have a college alone for wo- 
 
 61 
 
men. There is no college in the homoeopathic school 
 that a student would make a mistake in attend- 
 ing; though few, they are of high excellence 
 and standing. Our colleges are under the super- 
 vision of the Intercollegiate Committee of our na- 
 tional organization, the American Institute of 
 Homoeopathy, and in them is taught all that pertains 
 to the great field of medical learning and in addi- 
 tion thereto homoeopathic medicine. 
 
 The Literature of Our School. 
 
 The literature of the homoeopathic school is a 
 growing and efficient one. Our chief work has been 
 done in the field of the study of drug action and the 
 fitting of the same to disease. In every field where 
 the application of the remedy would lend aid to the 
 cure we have a fine literature; in all the specialties, 
 in surgery, in the practice of medicine in all 1 its vari- 
 ous branches, we need not go out of our school for 
 learned, complete and up-to-date works. In the fix- 
 ed branches of ' chemistry, anatomy and physiology 
 we rely upon the standard works on these subjects 
 from whatever hands they come. We have our own 
 works on diagnosis, urinalysis, electricity and kin- 
 dred topics. . Our periodical literature is a praise- 
 worthy one and gives the "abstract and brief chron- 
 icles" of the progress of general medicine, as well 
 as that of our own system. Our research literature 
 is an imperishable record of true medical progress. 
 Our societies publish transactions, our colleges is- 
 sue bulletins and journals, our hospitals publish re- 
 ports and statistics. In short, all the field is occu- 
 pied, and well occupied. Our libraries contain not 
 only the works of our own school, but the best there 
 is in medicine in other schools. 
 
 Therefore, Choose the Homoeopathic System. 
 
 To recapitulate and to conclude: We maintain 
 that students of medicine should select the homoeo- 
 pathic system for the following reasons : 
 
 First. It offers all that old school medicine can 
 offer in the medical field, and more, since it adds 
 thereto a knowledge of homoeopathic medicine, 
 Materia Medica and therapeutics. 
 
 Second. It is a scientific system ; its practitioners 
 are possessed of knowledge not possessed by any 
 other one system ; its colleges and teaching facilities, 
 
 62 
 
laboratories, hospitals, libraries, journals all insti- 
 tutions of the school are surpassed by none in the 
 great medical field. 
 
 Third. It offers a profession that is not over- 
 crowded, fields that are virgin, opportunities that 
 are waiting, fame and fortune to be won. 
 
List of Homoeopathic Colleges. 
 
 Boston Universit}' School of Medicine Boston, Mass. 
 
 Chicago Homoeopathic Medical College ....... Chicago, 111. 
 
 Cleveland Homoeopathic Medical College Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Denver Homoeopathic Medical College Denver, Col. 
 
 Detroit Homoeopathic Medical College Detroit, Mich. 
 
 Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital ...'... Chicago, 111. 
 Hahnemann Medical College of the Pacific .... San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Hering Medical College and Hospital Chicago, 111. 
 
 Homoeopathic Aledical College of Missouri St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Kansas City Hahnemann Medical College Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Now York Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, New York, N. Y. 
 Xew York Medical College and Hospital for Women . New York, N. Y. 
 
 Pulte Medical College Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
 Southern Homoeopathic Medical College Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Southwestern Homoeopathic Medical College Louisville, Ky. 
 
 University of Iowa Homoeopathic Medical College . . Iowa City, Iowa. 
 University of Michigan Homoeopathic Medical College, Ann Arbor, Mich. 
 University of Minnesota College of Homoeopathy . . . Minneapolis, Minn. 
 
Syracuso, N. Y 
 PAT. Ml 21. 1 901 
 
 .374417 
 
 \ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY