a light roller bandage applied over the whole arm, which was placed in an easy position at the patient's side, without splints of any kind. The subsequent treatment was left entirely to the judgment and discretion of the attending physicians, Drs. Ehle and McLean, to whose courage, good judgment and previous knowledge of the case, I am largely indebted for whatever of success has attended the operation. Since the operation, the boy has slowly, but steadily improved in general health; and is now able to walk about and to amuse himself in various ways.

His father, on the 30th day of December, ten days ago, in a letter to me, states his condition to be as follows: "An open sore, on the heel and one just above the ankle joint of the right foot, from both of which small pieces of bone have escaped. The hip joint, somewhat swollen, stiff and immovable, but not much sore. The sore over the clavicle not yet closed; and small pieces of bone are occasionally escaping from it. The wound on the shoulder, the result of the operation, nearly closed. The arm is not very strong, yet he uses it in writing, painting and whittling, and helps himself with it to a considerable extent."

This case is of interest, as illustrating the amount of disease the system is sometimes able to bear up under, and of the readiness with which nature will often second the efforts of the surgeon, even in the most unpromising cases.

Trusting the remarks here made upon the general subject of necrosis, together with the cases cited in illustration, will have the effect of calling the attention of the profession to a branch of surgery, cases of which every practitioner must often be called upon to treat, I respectfully submit this paper for your consideration.

Correspondence.

HOMEOPATHY IN THE UNIVERSITY—VIEWS FROM AN ALUMNUS' STAND-POINT.

EDITOR PENINSULAR JOURNAL OF MEDICINE-The fallacies of the "statement of the relations of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery in the University of Michigan to homœopathy," addressed to the Profession and the public, have been so thoroughly exposed in the reviews of Prof. Sager and others, that little more need be said on that score to convince disinterested observers that the Faculty have suffered themselves to be drawn into grave and serious complications-even if they had no agency in bringing them about—and in which the character of our Alma Mater suffers correspondingly.

Leaving the further discussion of the historical data, and the share of responsibility of the Faculty, for this unfortunate condition, which every true Alumnus must feel, involves the respectability of his professional parentage, to those who are more competent to continue it, we wish to direct attention to some other features of the "statement" and its endorsements, and to some obvious ethical considerations growing out of the facts already established as they appear to an Alumnus who has only the good of the old Medical College and of the profession at heart, and as I believe they appear to a steadily increasing number, as the situation is better understood, not only of Alumni, but of other regular physicians of the State; some of whom have been quoted as negatively supporting the position of the Faculty because of voting to avoid discussion before they comprehended the matter, and who deprecate the action of the State Society, at which some of them assisted, believing now that the policy of suppression, adopted there at the solicitation of the Faculty and their friends, was a mistaken one, implying doubt of the devotion of the alumni and a lack of trust in, or an unwillingness to heed, the voice of the profession of the state, or else a fear that their position would not bear the scrutiny of open discussion. They

believe also that the Faculty could safely have trusted to the justice of the Society, and should rather have sought than shunned an expression of its opinion: that the influence of the Faculty in suppressing discussion shows that they might have secured such a modified endorsement of their position from the Society, provided, of course, they could relieve themselves from responsibility for the predicament, as would have justified them in retaining their places under protest, while the experiment was tried long enough for the profession at large to have learned the peculiarities of their position, and in the event of the organized expression of the profession being adverse to the arrangement, trusting that the Regents and the Legislature sooner than see the inevitable decline of the College from its previous high position, would relieve the faculty of such an anomalous position, and its friends from the dilemma of supporting them in what they could not approve or withholding support altogether. But as the Faculty chose to take the risks without obtaining a formal expression of opinion on the merits of the situation, it is not strange that they soon found themselves under the necessity of making a "statement" which lacks all the force of a voluntary submission of the question to the profession for counsel, but seems a lame and labored attempt to defend their course.

If it was difficult to support the Faculty before their statement was issued, the difficulty has been made insurmountable thereby. (Indeed, it is but just to some members of the Faculty to say, that it is reported that they privately repudiate the statement seeing its inherent weakness, and assert that they never saw it until its appearance in the newspapers, and make no pretense of defending its most objectionable features. Still they must be held responsible for their share of it while it remains uncontradicted and signed "In behalf of the Faculty.")

Weak and inconsistent as it is, the statement must be considered as the best that could be made, and as a concession to the right of the profession to be heard in deciding a question of such moment to all. As such, we accept it, and desire to discuss it, not as a partisan, but from the stand point of professional good and with the hope of encouraging a more general expres

sion of opinion particularly from the Alumni; believing that whether they agree or disagree with us, their opinions cannot fail to influence the Faculty and the profession. An advisory right at least being accorded the Alumni of all modern Colleges a principle recognized in the university.

We concede the right of the Legislature and the Regents to establish as many Colleges as the people desire and choose to pay for, providing the good of the whole public is regarded. We concede to them honesty of purpose in official action, though the action may prove to have been unwise and unjust; nor do we consider them amenable on questions of general legislation to opinions of medical men except as to citizens of the State; though the Regents, as special guardians of the University, must admit as they have ever done, the peculiar relations and interest of physicians to the Medical Department. And we cannot suppose them more indifferent to opinions of physicians in this regard than to the opinions of lawyers concerning the Law Department. It might profitably be remembered here that it was not till the success of the Medical College had been assured, through the labors of its earlier faculties and the support of regular physicians, that homoeopathy and other sects discovered their rights in it. Yet even its museum, whose valuable collections, the work and contributions of regular medical men, is heralded in the homoeopathic announcement, as among the attractions of the Homoeopathic College. Also, that the Faculty were formerly in the habit of stating that the Medical Department with its share of the National grant and the support of the profession was nearly self-sustaining and had received but little direct aid from the State.

We should deprecate any course that would make martyrs of any sect, medical or other. We believe nothing will so quickly dissipate the pretensions of homoeopathy as a thorough and practical comparison with rational medicine; it is the farce of a comparison in the present arrangement that constitutes one cause of complaint.

We have a right to expect however that legislation shall not -be in the interest of a class, and if the State engage in experi

menting in sectarian education, that it shall conduct the experiments with such care and fairness, that the results may be of value in determining the claim of such sect upon the public for recognition or aid. That every project shall be so independent as not to prejudice the result of any other, but stand or fall on its merits. We have a right to expect that medical men shall not be required to endorse, by any indirection what they do not teach or believe; that either the plan of graduating regular stu dents, be so changed that only those members of the Faculty who are not obliged to assist in the education and graduation of Homœopathists shall constitute the Medical Faculty, or else that each College shall be made entirely distinct in reality as it is claimed to be in name.

The State may wisely prescribe the time of study, the forms, etc., to be complied with in obtaining a degree, but it is not the province of the State to define special studies as medicine, nor to require the professor to authorize the issue of degrees sanctioning not only what he does not teach, but what he believes erroneous and pernicious. The State appoints a State Geologist, it does not require him to perform his duties according to some exclusive system of Geology. The Regents appoint a Professor of Constitutional Law, but they do not define the kind of law he shall teach; the common and statute law and the courts, a power superior to legislators, determine that; neither can they require him to unite with a teacher of a kind of law he believes unconstitutional, to confer on a student a degree authorizing him to practice unconstitutional law. The legislature in this instance were careful not to usurp this prerogative of indi vidual judgment. They had an undoubted right to make the appropriation for a Homœopathic College, restricting the expenditure to that purpose, and with the sole other condition fixing locality. The Regents had the authority to determine details of the plan, and the Faculty had the right to accept with or without protest or decline; and as according to the statement of Regent Rynd, they "interposed no serious objection" to the plan when submitted to them—a statement entirely superfluous unless "objection would have influenced the Board in its action, and if