the same "matter of course" feeling with which they receive the blessings of air, light and water. Education is now the State's beneficent boon to its youth, who, in their future capacity as men and women, are to constitute the State.

Professor Robert S. Newton, M. D., editor of the New York MEDICAL ECLECTIC, has given in his journal some interesting statistics on the cost of education to the State of New York, from which we copy the following:

"State superintendent of public instruction, Neil Gilmour, reports that over 1,030,000 New York boys and girls attended the public schools last year. Their teachers were paid $7,600,392. The average salary paid was $374.45. City teachers get, on an average, $682.28; and other teachers, $239.26.

"There are 11,280 school districts in the State of New York, and 11,824 school houses, classified as follows: Log, 84; frame, 10,021; brick, 1,292; and stone, 417. "The total expenditure for the maintenance of our public schools, since 1850 to the present time, is shown in this table:

"On the Indian reservations the total number of children of school age is 1,620, of whom 1,262 attended school some portion of the year.

"The common school system was established in 1812. In 1816, the superintendent reported 2,755 school districts in the State, with an aggregate attendance of 140,000 pupils. In 1839, the number of school districts had increased to 10,583, and the aggregate attendance to 529,000; but the population of the State had increased to two and a half millions. In those years school age was from five to sixteen years, and the legal school year was three months. The school age now is from five to twenty-one years, and the legal school year is twenty-eight weeks. The United States census of 1876 shows that there were then 163,500 New Yorkers over ten years of age who could not read."- West Philadelphia Public Telephone, Nov. 6, 1880.

ILLIBERALITY IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.

By "LIBERAL PRACTITIONER."

In looking carefully back through the past, it must be acknowledged that the science of medicine has not kept pace with the progress in arts and sciences generally.

There must be some reason for this, for certainly no higher grade of education is found than among its members. The principal reason for it all is the burden of illiberality and bigotry which the profession has to carry. This burden has been carried to such an extent that it has become the curse of the profession. This illiberality is extended in all directions, not alone to members of other schools. It shows itself prominent in the medical societies, where every effort is made to coerce the physician into submission by arbitrary rules and resolutions.

Physicians, as a class, lack independence; they allow themselves to be led instead of striking out in their own line and being leaders. Occasionally a strong minded man, who will think and act for himself in spite of medical societies, investigates outside the regular school, and puts in practice some new ideas gained, for the benefit of his patients, using his own judgment, as any man has a right to do. Soon as it is known, he is censured by his medical society for what? His name is possibly dropped from the rolls, and his confrères forbidden to consult with him, and all for what? -simply because he chose to exercise the right God gave to every man, to think and act for himself, and in doing so had dared differ from some of his bigoted confrères. How much more manly it would be to act as old Dr. Chomel, of Paris, did, regarding the reappointment of Dr. Tessier to the charge of the hospital St. Margaret, in that city? All the physicians in charge of the different hospitals had rendered their report to the examining board. Tessier reported that he had treated his cases according to the homoeopathic law. This created a great stir, and the majority were for dismissing him at once, when old Chomel arose, and addressing the President, M. Andral, said: "While he differed from his confrère, M. Tessier, in some of his ideas, he thought that every man had a right to use his own good judgment in the treatment of his patients. He considered whatever reputation M. Andral and himself had made, was derived from the fact that they had acted for

themselves, using their own judgment. M. Tessier's report showed a greater number of cures than any other, and no man dared deny that the report was true. It was results they wanted, not theories." Tessier was reëlected, and continued in charge until his death. That is just it-it is results, facts, the medical profession should look for, not mere theories. Theories are nothing, unless proven by facts.

For ages back it has been considered dangerous for a physician to dare to investigate any new medical theories outside those prescribed by the dominant school. Who prescribes the medical theories that a man shall or shall not investigate? Who is the dictator who has the right to say, "Thus far shalt thou go and nofarther." Who has the right to restrict a man in his investigations, his associations, or his actions, provided he keeps within the bounds of common law, and carries himself as a gentleman?

A few years ago a prominent physician of New Orleans, whose name I could give, was called one night to visit with a homoeopathic physician a troublesome case of obstetrics. The medical society there had, just before that, passed a resolution to the effect, that none of its members should, on any account, consult with, or assist, any physician of any irregular practice. This resolution was mentioned to the physician by the messenger who called for him; his answer was, "D-n the medical society-there is a woman in trouble, I am going to help her."

That is the true manly spirit, and yet how many have the cour age to say. "D-n the medical society." One prominent physician did not have the courage to say it in a similar case, which occurred in Richmond not many years ago, although another one, called after his refusal, did go, and he will always be esteemed more highly for helping to relieve a woman, if he did assist a homœopath. The time for such miserable illiberality in the profession has passed-this is the age in which illiberality and bigotry will never thrive.

Let me mention another case. In a family, where the family physician was of the regular school, a member was taken sick, and chose to be treated by a homœopathic physician. The patient died; a post mortem was called for; two homoeopaths attended, and the old family physician was invited to be present. He re

fused to come upon the ground that there were two to one, as though there was to be a free fight. Upon his being told to bring others with him, he again refused, because those there were homœopaths. Now, who did he hurt the most, the homoeopaths or himself? Any fair minded man cannot help seeing the foolishness of such a course. Such actions bring discredit upon the whole medical profession.

I was sorry to see a little of the spirit of illiberality cropping out in the Clinic in the June and July issues. Sorry, because I always considered its editor a liberal, fair minded man, and I dislike to see him stoop to the calling of names, as such things prove nothing.

I contend that all physicians should be wholly unrestricted in their studies, investigations and practice. The duty of the physician is to heal the sick; and he should seek in every direction with an unbiassed mind for any information which will assist him in his labors. If, in the course of his investigations, he chooses to change some of his ideas, I contend that the medical profession act in a very unjust manner in refusing to consult with him, and in turning him out of their societies simply for that reason. It is this miserable gag system which has injured, and is injuring, the medical profession; but I think I can see a little of the leaven of liberality working slowly, but it is working, and will continue to work in spite of all the gags and throttles in the world. The medi cine of the future will be liberal medicine, in which physicians will help each other without regard to any petty differences; in which societies will be medical societies, whose members will be physicians in good standing, who are graduates of any legally authorized medical institution. It will do the profession good for physicians of different schools to meet together pleasantly, and argue points of difference; to investigate and test each other's theories openly and fairly, for something can be learned from all, and it is only the bigoted and illiberal who shut their eyes and wont learn. They will be left to form societies of their own until the stock has died out, when their bigotry will die out with them.

I hope to live to see the day when the illiberality of the present will be swept away, and all physicians will work together for the common good; when rings and cliques in the medical profession will be broken up, and the petty jealousies existing between physicians be no more; for the medical profession, the noblest in the world, should be above all such things. In this argument I am not taking a stand either for or against any particular school of medicine, but only for liberality in medicine in every direction, and against bigotry in every form.

[We are sorry to see that the Liberal Practitioner accuses us of illiberality. He is mistaken. We are for fair play all around, and we thought we said so in our July number.-ED. SO. CLINIC.]

PHYSICS IN FOOD.

We present in this number of the MEDICAL ECLECTIC, a lecture delivered by Prof. I. Thornton Osmond, A. M., at the State College of Pennsylvania, in which institution he holds the chair of physics. This lecture embraces the consideration of subjects of special interest and importance to the physician, and they are most ably and lucidly presented by Prof. Osmond. We are glad to see that the more notable colleges of this country are, of late years, giving more attention to matters that are allied to the practical industries of the world, and that they are disposed to give a wider and more liberal range to their curriculum.

THE TREATMENT OF CANCEROUS AND CANCROID ULCERS, AND GROWTHS NOT ADAPTED FOR REMOVAL BY THE KNIFE.

Stephen Smith, A. M., M. D., New York, in the Medical Record, gives a very readable and practical clinical lecture upon this interesting subject. The patient before him was one suffering from a return of cancerous masses in the margins of the old cicatrix, which formed after the removal of a cancerous tumor from the breast, one year before. Her general health was good, no evidence of the involvement of the internal organs present. He said: "You will frequently be at a loss to decide as to the course of treatment to pursue in such cases. They are usually regarded as not amenable to any treatment, and are allowed to progress from bad to worse, until they terminate fatally. The results of such treatment are great personal discomfort, pain, misery and a lingering death. That such cases may often be benefited by treatment there can be no doubt."

The treatment proposed in this case was the application of caustics, and according to his experience caustics judiciously selected and thoroughly and persistently applied, give the best results of any method of treatment yet practiced. In this case the agent selected was the anhydrous sulphate of zinc, the sulphate reduced by heat. Prof. Simpson, of Edinburgh, gave him the first knowledge of this agent as applied to these cases. The forms used on open surfaces are the powder simple, applied to the