my letter had not reached him, and again sent it with the following note: LIVINGSTON PLACE, NEW YORK, June 17, 1880. DEAR SIR: I send herewith a copy of the letter sent you at the time of the American Medical Association meeting, which yours of the 9th says you did not receive. I know not whether this proffer will result in anything, but it shall not be my fault if some of the most important facts ever demonstrated in biology and therapeutics, should fail for a very long time after their public demonstration to receive the attention of the leading medical teachers of our country. It is true that my experiments contradict the present opinions of the profession, but every medical man knows that the opinions of the profession are very transitory, and are continually changed by deeper investigation, and even totally reversed. The eminent Humboldt, whom all revere, said that "a presumptuous scepticism which rejects facts without examination of their truth, is, in some respects, more injurious than unquestioning credulity." Sir William Thompson said, in 1871, to the British Scientific Association, that "science is bound by the everlasting law of honor to face fearlessly every problem which can be presented to it." If the leaders of our profession agree with Humboldt and Sir William Thompson, it will afford me great pleasure to meet them. DR. S. D. GROSS. Very respectfully, JOS. RODES BUCHANAN. LIVINGSTON PLACE, June 2, 1880. DEAR SIR: Your distinguished position, virtually at the head of the medical profession in America, and an agreeable personal acquaintance, dating back thirty-eight years, induce me to address you as a representative man, upon a subject of the highest medical importance, rather than the officers of the National Medical Association now in session. I feel it my duty to do whatever is practicable for the increase of sound and useful knowledge, and having made important practical discoveries, I should have presented them to the National Association, but for the fact that medical party spirit interferes so greatly with the mutual courtesy which should prevail among educated men, as to make me very doubtful of a courteous reception. I have, however, brought the subject to which I refer to the attention of the Kentucky State Medical Society, which, on motion of Prof. D. W. Yandell, appointed a committee of investigation to report upon my discoveries and demonstrations. But as the secretary of the society failed for several months to notify the committee of their appointment, and the committee failed for several months to take any action, nothing had been done when I left the State in December, 1877. The discoveries to which I claim attention may be stated in the following propositions, and you will readily perceive that a brief course of experiments would be sufficient to establish their truth, as they may be so easily tested. 1. Every medical substance produces its effects on the human constitution by an influence or energy, which proceeds from the medicine, and diffuses itself with more or less rapidity, in proportion to the nervous susceptibility of the individual. 2. The susceptibility to this diffusive influence exists in infinitely varied degrees in different individuals, being very small in some persons (but never entirely absent), and being so great in others as to enable them to undergo medical treatment by small portions of a grain of medicine, scarcely discoverable by analysis. 3. To produce these effects, no absorption of medicinal substance is necessary, nor even contact of the medicine with the outside. The medicine may be securely enveloped in paper, or contained in a well stopped glass vial, and unknown to the subject. 4. The influence of the medicine begins gradually at the part nearest to contact, and diffuses itself gradually after the manner of a fluid, but produces more prompt general effects after it has reached the brain. 5. A galvanic current assists the transmission of these medical influences through the person, and may also be used for their removal. 6. Movements by the human hand may also be used to effect the removal of such influences, induced by medicines. 7. Metals or any other substances whatever in contact with the surface of the body operate as medicine, producing their appropriate effects. 8. This method of experimentation is of the highest practical value in determining the physiological action of any remedy, in discovering new remedies, and in gaining a philosophic view of the materia medica. Hence it would give an immeasurable increase to our capacity for cultivating and enlarging our knowledge of the therapeu tic value of medicines. I find among educated physicians, medical professors and authors, many who possess a high susceptibility, and would therefore be able to make the necessary demonstrations upon those whose knowledge and scientific training would give the results greater precision and value. 9. These methods of experiment show that doses cannot be arbitrarily fixed, but should be governed by the susceptibility of the patient. They also show that infinitesimalism or the smallness of the dose, does not prevent important results in constitutions of high impressibility, and that the external application of remedies may, in innumerable instances, be advantageously substituted for internal administration. I deeply regret the unwillingness of the profession to give the due investigation to any discovery which makes a fundamental change in doctrines necessary. I can do nothing but state the discoveries, and offer to give any requisite experimental proof, and refer to demonstrations already given. I would prefer to have the investigation made in our own country, rather than to appeal to the French Institute. If any committee from the association, or any gentleman of professional standing desire to investigate this matter, they shall have my cordial co-operation. It is no untried theory which I offer, but a matter of positive science, which I have been teaching and demonstrating during the third of a century, and is now well known to many physicians. The treatment of Dr. Harvey by Dr. Hoffmann is a precedent which has, I think, been followed long enough. If scientific discovery, involving radical changes of doc. trine, can be received to-day with candor and courtesy, it will indicate a great advancement in medical ethics. Any communication you may make will receive prompt attention from JOSEPH RODES BUCHANAN. REPLY OF PROFESSOR GROSS. DEAR DR. BUCHANAN: If I understand your wish, it is that an opportunity may be afforded you to be heard on the subject of the propositions stated in your letter to the American Medical Association. Whether the association would be willing to grant you this privilege, is a question which I am, of course, unable to answer. I doubt, however, whether it could be done; for the reason, first, because you are identified with a class of medical men who are not regarded as belonging to the regular profession; and, secondly, even supposing that no objections should be offered on this score, because no provision exists for such experimental inquiries. The latter obstacle might, it is true, be removed by the appointment of a special committee to witness the experiments and observations, and to report the result at the ensuing annual meeting. Whether the association would appoint such a committee, is, for the reasons above stated, exceedingly doubtful. Governed as we are by a specific code of ethics, I do not believe that any member of the Association would have the courage to inaugurate such a movement. I certainly should not. Thus, you see, it is impossible for me to aid you in the accomplishment of your wish. Truth is mighty, and must prevail; although it may, for a time, remain concealed for the want of a proper opportunity to unveil it. A little longer delay cannot do your cause any serious injury. My advice would be, that you take your case before a purely scientific association, and let that decide upon its merits. I have pleasant recollections of you and of Mrs. Buchanan, the daughter of a man of great intellect, and a gentleman of the old school, for seven years my near neigh. bor. I pray you to present my kindest regards to Mrs. Buchanan, and to believe me to be, with great respect and best wishes, truly your friend, Professor J. R. BUCHANAN. S. D. GROSS. I have taken the liberty of publishing this letter of Professor Gross, because the subject of our correspondence is of a public nature, and his position, as stated, is a public fact. In other respects, the letter is creditable to him as a high toned and courteous gentleman, and contains nothing that should demand conceal ment. RESPONSE OF PROFESSOR BUCHANAN. 1 LIVINGSTON PLACE, NEW YORK, June 19. DEAR SIR: Yours of 18th has been received and read, with regret for your position, but with pleasure to perceive that a false medical ethics has not with you overcome the sentiments and deportment of a gentleman, as sometimes happens to others, although it has obscured the perception of some of the cardinal duties of man in relation to human progress. Your letter shows that I correctly estimated the intolerant position of the National Association toward all who reject the social despotism of an ancient combination, which prolongs the spirit of the middle ages into this century; and I thank you for your honorable frankness. That it is a matter of no concern to the National Association how long important scientific progress may be delayed by their intolerance, is not disguised. As for going to a purely scientific, non-medical association (as you advise), there are some objections. I would certainly be met by the suggestion that a medical subject ought to be brought before a medical body, and that it would be beyond their province to take up medical questions. If by any good fortune this objection should be overcome, I should be very apt to meet the same difficulty as I did in 1843 with the Boston Academy of Sciences, when gentlemen of your association-the famous Warren, Jackson and others, being on the committee, and anxious only to protect their own sceptical position-first hindered and delayed, and then abandoned, the investigation, while treating myself personally with entire courtesy, and even passing a complimentary resolution, but evading the experimental issue, although another committee of medical gentlemen, some of whom were quite eminent, witnessed and recorded my experiments as absolutely and entirely successful, yet still evaded a distinct expression of opinion for want of moral courage a want which I have found very common. I have already tried the plan you suggest of inviting the attention of a scientific association. When the National Scientific Association met in Cincinnati about thirty years ago, I offered a paper on cerebral embryology; but a member of your National Medical Association was present, and, by active, personal intrigue, obtained its exclusion; for it is a part of the policy or "ethics" of the more bigoted members of your association, to carry on a social as well as professional war against medical free thinkers; and wherever the ramifications of this conspiracy extend-in society, in the press, or in the legislative hall-it is as potent as a Jesuit combination for the suppression of free science. I have no more hope of convincing you that such a combination is morally a great wrong to society, than of convincing a Catholic of the evils and wrongs connected with his mother church. The mass of mankind are mentally controlled by the magnetic power of great and organized masses, and incapable of disobeying them, or even reasoning against them. To the few great minds that are not thus controlled, society owes all its more important progress. It cannot be a great many years before you will, in the usual course of nature, be released from the surroundings that modify your thoughts at present, and see things in a very different light, becoming then as free in spirit as your sincere friend, JOS. RODES BUCHANAN. In view of the foregoing illustration of medical bigotry, and the conspiracy against the freedom of science to which all old school colleges and medical societies are pledged, who can say that the necessity for American Eclecticism, as a distinct movement, has passed away with the progress of science, or that the issues on which the battle of freedom has been fought are now dead? I can say of American Eclecticism, as one who has participated in the establishment of the first medical college bearing the name of Eclectic, and who drafted every important declaration of princi ples by which the policy of that college at Cincinnati was made known to the public (in which, for five years, I held the responsible position of dean of the faculty), that the Eclectic movement was not merely a battle of prescription codes-not a contest between calomel and podophyllum, or between bleeding and natural evacuations, or any other details of practice-but a battle for manly American freedom against a Jesuitical combination, born and nurtured under political despotisms and transferred to the free soil of America, upon which it is as much of an intruder as the combination of king, lords and commons, which our fathers expelled at the point of the bayonet. Eclectic American freedom is demanded, not for any favorite method of practice, but for the unbounded freedom of American genius, and the amplest use of all of Nature's resources, which, in their future accumulation, will make many of our present methods of practice obsolete. In the exercise of their freedom, American Eclectics always have, and, I trust, always will keep far in advance of their code governed rivals; and, with all his world wide reputation, it would be impossible for Prof. Gross to make a creditable record in a hospital in which his practice might be compared side by side with that of Prof. Newton or any other eminent Eclectic surgeon. But even if the Eclectic improvements were all furtively adopted in old school colleges (for they are seldom, if ever, received and credited in an honorable manner), would that, as some pseudoEclectic physicians claim, imply that American Eclecticism should cease as a distinct movement? By no means. The case supposed will never occur; but if it did, there would still be an impassable gulf between American medical freemen and the slaves of a code, and the distinction would disappear only when we consent to bow the neck and wear the yoke of what is called regularism, surrendering our freedom as medical practitioners, faithful to our patients and faithful to advanced science. When an American Eclectic is willing to pledge himself that he will let his patient die rather than use remedies not approved by the association of colleges, and that he will let the patient of a physician of another school die rather than come in with friendly advice, then the distinction of principles has disappeared, for he has |