him. The following is from the progenitor of the present British Medical Association. It was resolved that:

"There are three classes of practitioners who ought not to be members of this association, viz.: 1st, Real homeopathic practitioners; 2d, Those who practice Homeopathy in combination with other systems of treatment; 3d, Those who, under various pretences, meet in consultation, or hold professional intercourse with those who practice Homoeopathy."

This looks like bigotry in a national medical association and probably had any member remonstrated he would have been expelled.

This is from Dr. Lauder Brunton:

"As a medical man is bound to do his utmost for the good of the patient, it is obvious that although he may employ baths or packs as a mode of treatment, he cannot, without becoming untrue to his profession, throw aside all other means of treatment and become a hydropath; nor can he consult on equal terms with those who, either through ignorance or wilful blindness, deny the use of other means of cure, and limit themselves to the application of water. What is true of hydropathy is true of Homoeopathy."

The old Machevellian refrain, "Homeopaths give nothing but little pills. Only that and nothing more."

Who introduced cleanliness, fresh air, pure water into the sick-room, regulated the diet of the patients, reformed the treatment of the insane, and generally brought sanity into the practice of medicine? The early homeopaths, of course. Wonderful improvements since certainly, but the initiative was from them.

Again, Brunton:

"Yet we hear some leading homoeopaths say: 'We do not claim any exclusiveness for our method,' and then complain that they are excommunicated by the medical profession. If they have renounced the errors of Hahnemann's system they ought not to retain its name, but frankly acknowledge their error and return to rational medicine."

Not many "complain," do they? Also let any read Hahnemann's "errors" and then read Brunton's book and he will find what Wackford Squeers was wont to term "richness." But the other day Professor Lombroso, of the Italian University, asserted

that everything of drug therapeutic value in medicine to-day is taken from homeopathy.

Here is one from The Hospital:

"The truth is that so-called 'homoeopaths' cut themselves off from the great body of scientific practitioners by a voluntary and useless act of schism. If they were content to be medical men, like others, they could practice according to any principle they pleased and nobody would say a word."

"Cut themselves off" is good. And that they could practice as they please! Let Dr. Millican answer:

"And how stands the case now? Is there any justification, any excuse, for the maintenance of a designation of special organizations at the present time? We are told that if those whose practice is more or less based upon the 'law of similars' will only abstain from calling themselves 'homoeopaths,' give up their special organizations, directories, and societies, and dismantle their hospitals, the hand of professional fellowship shall be once more extended to them. Individuals have tried it, and with what result? Why, that they are immediately accused of dishonorable conduct. Call yourself a homoeopth and you are 'trading on a name' that is derogatory to the profession. Do not call yourself one and you are sailing under false colors. 'Heads I win, tails you lose!'

"What was the case with Dr. Kidd at the deathbed of Lord Beaconsfield? He had, I believe, discarded the appellation of 'homoeopath,' and removed his name from the homoeopathic directory, and he notoriously did not admit the universal application of the 'law of similars' or the necessity for infinitesimal dosage. Yet Sir William Jenner felt it his duty to refuse to meet him."

The humor of this last paragraph is that Sir William Jenner, "M. D.," bought his diploma for fifteen pounds and never studied medicine at all, whereas Dr. Kidd was a physician and a good one.

A final quotation from Dr. Millican's paper-the doctor is a regular himself:

"That all those who admit the truth of and apply in practice-to whatever extent-the 'law of similars,' are to that extent ipso facto practising 'Homoeopathy,' and are therefore 'homoeopaths.' No excep. tion can, therefore, be justly taken to this appellation, unless it be held also to imply the rejection of all other rules and methods, which it is shown not to do; that the name was conferred, not assumed, at a time when even the partial truth and application of the 'law' were scouted as absurd and denied, and that the separate organizations

were originated at the same time and solely as a means of self-defense; and, finally, that their present maintenance is excusable when we consider the fact, of which ample evidence has been supplied, that even now, in spite of liberal professions and acknowledgment of the partial truth of the homoeopathic law by the leaders of the profession, there is still on the part of the rank and file a disposition to make its acceptance and application-nay, even to make association with those who accept or apply it—a ground of professional ostracism."

The "regulars" always have been welcomed to the homeopathic ranks, and, as a rule, when they do take up homeopathy become most excellent homeopathic prescribers. Carrol Dunham is an example.

The pinch seems to come when the claim is made that Similia Similibus Curantur is the "ONLY law of cure." Probably Carrol Dunham's famous definition is better: Homeopathy is "The Science of Therapeutics" and therapeutics is "That part of medicine the object of which is the treatment of disease," and science-a sadly abused word-is "scire," i. e., "to know." The homeopath who has faithfully practiced homeopathy knows that given a certain marked train of symptoms a certain potentized drug will cure them-if cure be possible-and hence he has drifted into the seemingly arrogant assertion that "Homeopathy is the Law of Cure"-and there cannot be two natural laws for a similar purpose. Drug giving is only a part of therapeutics and no homeopath excludes the other parts of the treatment of disease. He knows what will follow if he gives a purgative, but that is an adjuvant measure, and it is only when he gets a clearcut line of symptoms that he knows a cure will follow-if cure be possible.

It may seem to some that this is rather far-fetched, for deaths occur under homeopathic treatment. It may be that "homeopathy is the science of drug therapeutics" would be a better definition.

From all the foregoing it would seem that a union of the two schools is impossible until the "regular" brother in national assembly will declare that homeopathy is a legitimate part of therapeutics and will faithfully teach it in his colleges and universities.

THE OPSONIC INDEX.

We sincerely hope that homeopaths will not allow themselves to lose their heads in the whirl of new discoveries on homeopathic lines which our allopathic friends are treating us to just now. In his discovery of a method by which it is possible to meausre the disease resisting power of the blood of any person or animal to any specific infection, Prof. A. E. Wright has conferred a distinct benefit on medical powers of observation. But we think he would be the last man to claim that he had discovered in this any new principle.

It has been well known, in a general way, from ancient times that a great difference in resisting power exists between different persons under different conditions and at different times. It has been known to the medical world since Hahnemann's day that certain remedies have the power of heightening this resistance to morbid action. The homeoprophylactic power of belladonna against scarlatina is a similar example of a remedy raising the "opsonic index" of exposed persons in reference to a specific infection. The homeoprophylactic powers of vaccininum and variolinum against smallpox are others.

Neither can we rob Hahnemann of his epoch-making discovery of a method of discovering in any case of disease the most hopeful means of strengthening the vital resistance at the point where it is most urgently attacked. Homeopaths have always known these facts, and have been able to utilize them to the benefit of mankind. Professor Wright has enabled us to state some of the facts in different and more detailed terms. That is all. In order to make any practical use of his discovery he is compelled to adopt the homeopathic method. For our part, we should have more respect for these workers if they were to frankly admit their indebtedness to Hahnemann.

Nor is this allopathic excursion into homeopathy one whit more "scientific" than the practice of Hahnemann.

It is a curious fact that homeopaths frequently come to take the humble view of their science which allopaths are always ready to present them with. With the allopath, homeopathy is the reverse of everything that is "scientific." The homeopath is apt

to accept this and to rejoice exceedingly when he sees an allopath, armed with microscope and injecting syringe, do something homeopathic. This, he is apt to say, is really "scientific"-as opposed, of course, to the crudities of Hahnemann.

Now, this is all topsy-turvy thinking. Hahnemann's homeopathy is, and remains, the most solidly scientific thing in therapeutics, and nothing that bacteriologists may ever discover can shake its position in the very least. The work of Dr. Compton Burnett with the nosodes of cancer and consumption was every bit as "scientific" as anything that has since been done by Koch, Roux, Behring, Doyen or Jacob, and vastly more successful than anything these have to show.

It is a sad reflection on the homeopathic doctorate, and betrays a feeble grasp of the mighty truth their system embodies, that so many homeopaths are eager to learn homeopathy at second-hand from allopaths, when they have had teachers in their own ranks expounding identical facts for years.

However, we suppose we ought to be thankful that even allopaths are doing something, as Dr. Macnish puts it, to "raise the "opsonic index" of the homeopathic confraternity.-The Hom. World, London, June 1, 1906.

CESARIAN SECTION REQUIRED ON ACCOUNT OF SEVERE HEMORRHAGE FROM A VULVAR VARIX.Brunet (Magdeburg) reports a rare case of this sort. Many of us have doubtless seen such cases where this accident threatened with startling seriousness. The case reported is that of a nineteen-year-old primigravida in whom profuse hemorrhage occurred from two places near the meatus, and almost ensanguinated the patient. The veins upon the vulva and vaginal walls were greatly distended and on the point of rupturing. Labor pains had not yet begun. Tamponing the vagina was tried, but during three succeeding days on each attempt at renewal the hemorrhage was so great as to threaten the life of the patient. Artery clips were useless on account of the friability of the tissues. On this account the Cæsarian section was performed. The lower extremities did not show varicoses. Such a case was only once observed among 4,000 patients in this institution. Wüllmers collected sixteen such instances in the literature, seven of which terminated fatally. Ruge and Martin have successfully treated cases of varicosis of the extremities by repeated ergot injections.-Zentralbl. f. Gyn., 1906, 43.-Theodore J. Gramm, M.D., in Hahnemannian Monthly.