running through glands as important as the liver, pancreas, and kidneys, has been too much neglected in searching for the cause of obscure diseases, especially those referred to the digestive organs.

I have not written this article for the purpose of introducing any new treatment, but I wish to say in conclusion, that in the active or chronic forms or stages of hepatico-ductitis active depletion is seldom necessary. Even in the most acute form, the administration of an emetic, followed by a brisk cathartic, cupping the right hypocondrium and subsequently a blister to that part, will prepare the case for the commencement of the following treatment, the object of which is to establish on the biliary ducts, as rapidly as can be done without undue excitement, the influence of mercury. It is well known that the peculiar effect of mercury on the human system is hastened by combining it with antimony; and also that antimony requires that we combine some anodyne with it to render the stomach tolerant of its use. Therefore I use the following pill, varying its proportions and dose to meet indica

The above is to be made into eight or ten pills, usually eight, and given in single pill doses three times a day, till relief is obtained. The time which I have found necessary to continue their use is from three to five days. Some cases require a smaller dose longer continued. It is worthy of remark that, after the pills have been continued till a decided influence is produced by them on the mucous membrane, a single dose at bed time of a powder composed of Dovers powder, from six to ten grains, and nitrate of potash ten grains, will produce a powerful action of the skin and kidneys, which will often prove "critical."

Meredith Bridge, Feb. 2d, 1852.

GEO. W. GARLAND, M. D.

A LETTER

To THOMAS E. BOND, A. M., M. D., on Homœopathy, occasioned by the publication of his Address to the Graduates of the Washington University, on 3d March, 1851, by J. SCHMIDT.

[The following review of "John Smith's" Letter is characterized by a quiet sarcasm, and at the same time contains such an excellent statement of the absurdities of “globulism" that we believe our readers will thank us for giving them an opportunity to read it. Ed. N. H. Journ. of Med.]

In common with our fellow citizens of Baltimore and "the rest of mankind," we have received a copy of a pamphlet of which the above is the

title. To the great number of those thus favored, the "Letter" has gone as an ingenious advertisement of Mr. J. Schmidt, who, we learn, is a homœopathic practitioner, from a foreign land. As he does not assume the title of physician, we infer that he has no pretensions to be considered one, but founds his claim to the confidence of the sick, upon some other considerations than professional grade or scientific acquirement. But to us, in our official capacity as editor, the pamphlet comes as an appellant for fair notice and candid criticism, and that we are entirely willing to bestow upon it.

Who, then, is the writer of this letter? That the title does not give correct information upon this point is evident upon every page of the pamphlet. It is apparent everywhere that the name J. Schmidt, is, as Dr. Bond says of homœopathy, "a word which is not a sign;" in short, that the publication is the result of an arrangement by which the real author may escape retribution, and the ostensible one reap notoriety. There is always a doubt of identity about "John Smith."

Who, then, is the writer? Evidently not a physician, or one well acquainted with medical science. Certainly not a scholar, as the amusing parade of Greek and Latin quotations from unstudied books, and the puerile criticism upon a typographical error in Dr. Bond's "latinity," will convince any one conversant with literature. But these negations help but little towards the truth; they may even be considered to favor the pretensions of Mr. J. Schmidt himself. We do not know the author, but should we venture an inference from the style and manner of the letter, we would say, that the evident purpose to avoid discussing anything, the dealing in generalities, the smart, tripping and really pretty style, the pert yet polished sauciness of manner, the willingness to adopt another's name, and to sacrifice an independent to a represented position, all lead us to conclude that the author will never be found in pantaloons, unless she be a Bloomer-Rem acu tetigimas, Mr. Schmidt? Has homeopathy found refuge under a petticoat? Be this as it may, until we shall find the writer, we must consider Mr. J. Schmidt as his or her legal representative, and in our further remarks we will speak of him as the veritable author. We can see nothing of the craft but the figure head, harmless thing though we know it to be.

The pamphlet purports to have been occasioned by some offensive remarks in Dr. Bond's address to the graduates of Washington University. In referring to our copy of that address we find somewhat less than two pages of the nineteen devoted to remarks upon homœopathy, as Dr. Bond merely mentions it incidentally. We quote this part of the address in full:

"Or you may be succeeded by a mere name, by homoeopathy, a word which is not a sign-a mere minus, serving to indicate subtraction of everything, but having no positive value. The ponderous polysyllable abracadabra used to be pronounced over luxated joints, and it was believed that a dislocated member would start at the sound and jump to its socket. Homœopathy is the modern polysyllable-the fashionable abracadabra-equally unintelligible and equally omnipotent.

"In the words of the simple cobbler of Agawam, 'I look upon it as the very gizzard of a trifle, the product of a quarter of a cypher; the epitome of nothing, fitter to be kicked, if it were of kickable substance, than either honored or humored.' Indeed, there is something too absurd for comedy and too serious for farce in this conception, which we cannot call ideal, because it contains no thought, nor monstrous, because it has no form.

It

"Homœopathy avowedly contends with diseases beyond materiality. wrestles not with flesh and blood, and truly its weapons are not carnal,' for

the qualities of its medicines elude analysis, and their bulk defies the microscope. I wish to be charitable, but to peddle about these little pellicules does seem to be a small business for men that have bones in them.'

"The oddest thing about this animalculoid practice is the solemn simplicity with which the very few medical men who trade in it, present their claims to public confidence. They invariably declare that they have been fearfully unsuccessful in their attempts at regular practice, that medicines in their hands have proved deadly doses, and that they have been fairly lashed out of the profession by the whip of conscience.

"Now all this is doubtless true enough, but it constitutes a very dubious recommendation to the confidence of the sick. The doctor of course infers that the fault is in the science-but there is another way of accounting for the unfortunate results, and the patient may not think the doctor's explanation the most plausible.

"Suppose you were to find in to-morrow's newspaper an advertisement like the following: Navigation exploded, the present method of crossing the seas found to be altogether erroneous and inconceivably dangerous, being the confession of a regular mariner and master of a ship, who, having repeatedly lost his vessel and drowned his passengers, has become convinced that navigation is not a science, but a mere conjectural art, and now offers to the public a new and safe conveyance over the seas without the aid of sails or rudder, plank or iron.

"Suppose, upon personal application to this Solomon, he were to tell you that ships really are absurd things, that in fact they do not float, and are not propelled by the wind; that experience is a fallacious guide, and that physical science is not applicable in the matter; that if a man would traverse the seas he must not trust to anything material; that the thing to be kept above water is not the visible body but the invisible immateriality; that, therefore, the mode of conveyance should not be visible nor tangible; but be sought in the principle of similia similibus—that to preserve one against drowning, it is only necessary to swallow a drop of water, and thus fortified the passenger will have nothing to do but to plunge into the sea and swim for his life.

"Certainly you would think that you had encountered a very amusing madman. Yet if there be anything conclusive in logic, this illustration is not a caricature, or even an exaggerated exposition of homoeopathy. But the name is absurd; let us christen it again, and in view of its impalpable nature and deadly consequences, call it the shadow of death; and lest the broad farce be wholly lost in the tragic designation, we will take the liberty to correct its shibboleth, and for similiæ similibus curantur, substitute simiæ simiis ceduntur."

Mr. J. Schmidt does not like these remarks; distinctly dislikes them; is in pain about them, and can only be comforted by the cheering suggestion that notoriety may be got out of them, nay, that substantials may be got out of them; for notoriety in quackery is practice, and practice is emolument. A donkey with a thistle at his tail, frets and kicks and brays at the tormenting thing, and then eats it. Coleridge says, truth is a good dog, but if he bark too close to the heels of error he may get his brains kicked out. Dr. Bond has learned by this time that there may be danger to the brains of a man from the heels of an ass, and will probably be more cautious hereafter in his approach towards intruders upon the domain of physic.

But let us to the pamphlet, and see if we can find out the meaning of it. Mr. J. Schmidt states the object of his letter to be to point out to that public whom Dr. Bond has gratuitously undertaken to enlighten, how little

ground or excuse he had in coming before it. This he declares to be his inclination" and his "purpose."

In carrying out this deliberately formed and clearly expressed design, Mr. J. Schmidt declares that he will shun all "recriminations."

We have, then, his purpose positive-to defend aspersed homœopathy. His purpose, negative-to say nothing disrespectful of medicine."

He then proceeds to do what he did not intend, and in so doing entirely neglects to do what he designed. He falls foul of medicine in the manner universally in fashion with quacks, whatever may be the particular practice for which they may happen to be the advocates, wielding the same club that has fallen from the impotent hand of every preceding assailant, with as much confidence as though it were his own peculiar weapon, hoping, doubtless, that in the noise of the attack, the attention of observers may be directed from his promise of defence.

Mr. J. Schmidt has had so much to do with fools that he seems to think there are none others in the world.

Though we see no propriety in consenting to this diversion from the subject in dispute, for homoeopathy, and not medicine, is in question, we have no hesitation in meeting Mr. J. Schmidt, or a whole herd of Schmidts, upon the ground he has chosen for the display of his energies. Nothing but want of space prevents from a full discussion of the objections made to medicine, not only by this man, but stereotyped for the use of all who may find it convenient to avail themselves of them. But we may not do this now. The subject is vast, and worthy of much fuller consideration than we can give it. Moreover, we would not flatter the exuberant vanity of Mr. J. Schmidt, by leading him to suppose himself of more consequence than he really is. It would be unkind to him, and might inflict upon the community another pamphlet.

Mr. J. Schmidt has ascertained by laborious research, that in past times, men have differed much, debated much, and contradicted much about medical matters. That theories once prevalent, prevail no longer, that modes of practice once thought proper, have been abandoned, and he therefore infers that there is no truth nor certainty in medicine. In other words, he snarls at the healing art, because it has progressed, because it has advanced with human advancement, because it has not stood still while everything else was moving about it. He does not perceive that if he could look back and see a common consent of physicians in all matters of importance to health, reaching into the past as far as the history of man, he would see only that in this department of knowledge, mind had been stagnant; that here, and here only, men had been satisfied with the least possible quantity of truth, had never attempted to disengage it from accompanying error, to augment it by continuous accumulation, or preserve it from adulteration. Mr. J. Schmidt might find as much fault with astronomy as with medicine. The science of the stars has its history of erroneous theories and distorted facts, and arrogant assumptions. It, too, can point to its volumes of acrid controversy, and show how truth is won by unenviable debate, and eliminated from long experience of error. Yet is there no truth in astronomy? Was there not always truth in it, and is not the science of this age the aggregate gain of all ages that have preceded it? Precious truths, Mr. J. Schmidt, like precious metals, are not given in their purity and singleness to man. It is for him to find them out, with patient labor, to select them with intellectual discrimination, to seek for wisdom as for hidden treasure. What science was ever completed by a single mind, and handed perfect to all coming generations? None

but homoeopathy, which of all the sciences falsely so called, has the least claim to be called scientific. It is but the lengthened shadow of a darkened mind.

Mr. J. Schmidt might perceive that the true difference between him and medicine is found in the results of this very progression. Does he not see that homoeopathy is but a slight advance from the doctrine of Signatures, and that the presumptuous arrogance of Hahnemann smacks strongly of Para celsus? Moreover, does not Mr. J. Schmidt perceive that one reason why there are so many absurd doctrines to laugh at in the past history of medicine, is because in every age there have been Hahnemanns with packs of Schmidts yelping at their heels? Does he not know that medicine has preserved the memory of its assailants, and that much of the absurdities ascribed to it ought to be remembered as the deeds of pretenders? A hundred years hence, homeopathy will be laughed at as a folly of medicine, though in truth it has no more to do with medicine than a counterfeit note with paper circulation.

Mr. J. Schmidt does not perceive these things at all-evidently has no perceptions in the matter.

One might have supposed that after declaring his positive intention to vindicate homœopathy, Mr. J. Schmidt would have given to the public a succint and clear exposition of the theory and practice of it. But Mr. J. Schmidt does no such thing. The success of homoeopathy, with the public, depends upon their misconceptions of its nature, and these misconceptions it is by no means Mr. J. Schmidt's desire to dispel. People have been so long accustomed to associate the idea of small doses with the administration of potent medicines, that the recipients of homeopathic pellicules naturally suppose that they are taking concentrated, instead of infinitely diluted drugs. The more unprincipled of homoeopathic practitioners really do give the most concentrated medicine under this disguise, being compelled to select strychnine, morphine, &c., because the medicinal dose of the drug may be concealed under the aspect of a homoeopathic pill. We do not accuse Mr. J. Schmidt of downright roguery like this, but we ask him how long his pa tients would be contented with his physic if he would honestly inform them of the true avoirdupois quantity of medicine contained in his prescriptions? What a funny thing would be a regular report of a case treated homœopathically, with the exact medical prescriptions gravely administered and hopefully swallowed! Will not Mr. J. Schmidt grant us this gratification? No, he will not. He prefers, with all the empirical pill makers et id genus omne, to appeal to cures always safe evidence, because it can never be examined.

Prithee, Mr. J. Schmidt, if the homeopathic dealers believe in these "cures," why do they not send for one another when they get sick? Do they doubt the practical working of their great maxim, and reject the dogma, that "like can be cured by its like ?”

Instead of expounding homeopathy, Mr. J. Schmidt falls to criticising Dr. Bond's language. The doctor has said “ homœopathy is a mere name," and what, says Mr. J. Schmidt," is allopathy?" We answer, a nickname. No physician regards it as any thing else. "And what," continues Mr. J. Schmidt, " are medicine and science, but names?" Indeed, Mr. J. Schmidt, though you may know no more of them, the names are the easiest things learn. ed about them. But we will not attempt to give you more information upon either medicine or science. To a homeopath it is not needed. Indeed, where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

Dr. Bond has said, "that homoeopathy is a word which is not a sign.” To