with deeper things; to be patient with the little annoying things to the ultimate benefit of the larger cnes. A frank explanation of why we do not think it advisable to interfere with the deep action of the chronic remedy will enlist the co-operation of the earnest patient; he will be willing to wait on the action of the remedy, and vie with the physician in his enthusiasm in the welcoming of the return of old symptoms, as the unhindered drug causes the re-stimulated vital force to throw out the diseased miasm from the center to the circumference.

In this day of living at high pressure with the tendencies away from the simple life, instruction relative to the common things may well be instituted. Improper foods and methods of eating and drinking must be corrected; the reading of exciting or stimulating books must be modified; the attendance upon suggestive plays or moving picture shows must be interdicted; the observance of the rule of common-sense hygiene must be encouraged, especially along the lines of dress, family, social and religious duties; the regularity in the habit of the hours for relaxation, recreation, and sleep; the strict observance of a specified time for the solicitation of a bowel movement, even though the desire does not seem to be present; the proper instructions relative to the sexual functions; the encouragement of the mental "Lock up, not down; out, not in" all have a marked bearing upon the welfare of the patient, and which must be urged by the physician.

Other patients must be instructed regarding smoking, and the amount of liquors they shall use, together with precautions in the use of tea, coffee, and condiments, etc. In some cases we must inquire into and perhaps prohibit the use of strong odors, scents, etc.: we may even have to give instructions to the hygiene of the bath. the hour for taking, the temperature of the water, and the number of repetitions; little things of themselves, but amounting to much in the aggregate and in their results upon the welfare of the patient.

Personal experience will dictate other lines of procedure in the systematic education of the patient, for his best good: so further elaboration does not seem necessary; enough has been said to direct the attention along the most feasible lines, which, if followed out, will result in the active co-operation of the patient.and his cure will fellow, tuto, cito et jucunde. G. H. THACHER, M. D., H. M.

2008 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Read before the Hahnemann Round Table of Philadelphia, Pa.

CONTRIBUTED

MARRIAGES NOT MADE IN HEAVEN.

'O THE EDITOR: Rev. Israel Ainsworth, pastor of the Trinity Congregational Church, of Revere, Mass., is the first minister to come out and say that there is nothing in the Scriptures warranting ministers in performing marriage ceremonies, and that his own conscience has often troubled him in doing the same.

It is very true that no minister can truthfully say "what God hath joined." Christianity, as taught by Jesus Christ, compelled the actual abandonment of wives to the convert. God would join only his own. God's own are those who have been "born again," after seeking and finding the kingdom of heaven in themselves. The average applicant for

marriage is not one of these.

Marriage should be resolved down to a mere civil contract, and the name of God should not be associated with an act which bears no relation to the doctrines of the new dispensation. Divorce should also be regarded in the same light, and it is only for the preservation of churches and ministers that churchmen assume that divinity shapes our ends in marriage and divorce.

FRANCIS B. LIVESEY, Clarkson, Maryland.

***

SOME COMMENTS UPON THE OPEN LETTER OF
DR. LOUIS P. CRUTCHER.

W

BY DR. FRANCIS B. KELLOGG.

ITH REFERENCE to the open letter addressed to Dr. Louis P. Crutcher, I have the following comments to make:

Dr. Crutcher is, I understand, the paid recruiting agent of the National League of Medical Freedom. He is also a homeopath of reccgnized standing. He has deliberately cast his lot with this league, and it naturally becomes necessary for him to justify his course as a homeopath in so doing. Every member of the homeopathic school is responsible for the reputation and character of that school, which responsibility increases with the prominence of the member. Dr. Crutcher's activity in the organization and support of this

'league is naturally taken by the lay community, and by many innocent and uninformed homeopaths, to represent the attitude of the homeopathic school. This fact has, more than anything else, made it necessary for those who, like myself, believe this league to be inimical to the real interests of homeopathic physicians, to declare themselves and state their

reasons.

I see nothing in Dr. Crutcher's letter to lead me to materially modify the statements of my address, and I must respectfully decline to enter into a journalistic controversy over them.

The proposition to which my address was mainly devoted was that "the dynamic force behind the National League of Medical Freedom is the Christian Science Church." Since that address was read, U. S. Senator John D. Works, a leading Christian Scientist and reader in the Christian Science Church, in a speech in the Senate in opposition to the Owen Bill, read a letter from a Christian Science authority estimating that the League membership was from one-third to cne-half Christian Science, while twentyfive per cent additional was favorable to the cult. The same authority gave the total membership of the League at 200,000, of which number 10,000, or five per cent, were physicians, of whom the plurality were osteopaths, next in number eclectics, then homeopaths and last chiropractics. The Senator then goes on to say that while Christian Scientists have acted as individuals in joining the League, physicians, on the contrary, represent organizations numbering many thousands. This corroborates from an eminent source my statement that Dr. Crutcher is assumed by the laity to represent homeopathy in general. In my address I stated that the evidence in support of my proposition was internal, rather than external. What was internal evidence at that time has since been freely and frankly acknowledged in the above quoted speech, although Dr. Crutcher has apparently overlooked it.

To those who believe, as Dr. Crutcher's letter would imply, that the patent medicine interests are disinterested spectators of the activities of the League, I would suggest that they read Collier's Weekly for June 3d. Outside of the patent medicine interests themselves, there is no better authority upon their methods and men. As to their cash contributions to the League, Dr. Crutcher is in a position to know whereof he speaks when he denies their financial support.

Dr. Crutcher denies that any attempt was made to secure the endorsement of the A. I. H at Pasadena. I happen to know that such an attempt was made, for I was myself approached on that occasion by the secretary of the local branch of the League, who attempted to enlist my efforts to secure such endorsement. I could not understand why this somewhat prominent layman should take such an active interest in the equities of the medical profession. I asked a relative of his, who is an old school physician, if he could enlighten me. He laughed at me. "Why, don't you know," said he, "that Mr. N- is one of the pillars of the Christian: Science Church?" This first opened my eyes to the fact that the homeopathic school was being used to pull Christian Science chestnuts out of the fire. This is only one of a number of similar experiences, since crowned by Senator Work's speech in the Senate, all going to establish beyond a doubt the substantial correctness of my assumption. Let me say that I have nc argument against the individual right to believe in and to practice Christian Science, but let there be no mistake; the Christian Science Church is opposed not only to medicine, but (and here is the rub) it is-and logicallyopposed to the prevention of disease wherein the hope of humanity rests for deliverance from the ills of the flesh. It would use, the homecpathic school, or any other means, to block the wheels of progress along this line, and it is doing it by going into politics. Through this same League of Medical Freedom it defeated the bill in the last Legislature providing for the more effective physical examination of school children, the cnly aim of which was to remove the physical and mental obstacles from the pathway of suffering childhood.

Which has the physical good of humanity at heart, the medical profession or the Christian Science Church? It is possible for the feeble minded among the laity to have some doubt upon this question, but the physician who doubts must be feeble minded indeed.

Editor of The Critique:

DEAR SIR: In a recent issue of your journal was published an open letter addressed to me by Dr. Louis P. Crutcher offering some drastic and caustic criticisms upon my president's address at the last meeting of the California State Homeopathic Medical Society. Inasmuch as the address which called forth this letter was never published in TH. CRITIQUE, nor in several other homeopathic journals in which Dr. Crutcher published his letter. I herewith send you a copy of the address and respectfully request that you publish the same, together with the accompanying comments upon Dr. Crutcher's letter.

Very respectfully yours,

FRANCIS B. KELLOGG.

*NOTE: Will publish Dr. Kellogg's address later.-Editor.