The Section met at 2 P. M.

WEDNESDAY, June 2, 1880.

A paper entitled Sphygmograms, with Notes of Autopsies, was read by Dr. H. R. HOPKINS, of New York.

On motion, this was referred without discussion to the Committee of Publication.

Dr. ROBERT W. TAYLOR, of New York, read a paper on The Use of Chrysophanic Acid in the Treatment of Skin Diseases, which on motion was referred to the Committee of Publication, without discussion.

A paper to be read, by Dr. J. SOLIS COHEN, of Pennsylvania, for Dr. W. Y. GADBERRY, of Mississippi, on Artificial Inflation as a Remedial Agent in Diseases of the Lungs, was read by title, and on motion referred to the Committee of Publication.

Dr. WM. PEPPER, of Pennsylvania, read a paper, Further Contributions to the Local Treatment of Pulmonary Carities.

Dr. W. G. BROWNSON, of Connecticut, moved that the paper be referred to the Committee of Publication, and that the thanks of the Section be tendered the writer.

Dr. BENNETT could not see that the writer proved anything except the harmlessness of operation. The tendency of cavities to heal when under good and proper general and nutritious treatment was well known. In these cases it would be difficult to say whether the local treatment or the general treatment should be entitled to the credit of benefiting the patient.

Dr. D. B. WHITNEY, of New York, asked Dr. PEPPER the result of his experience in treating cases in this manner; would he recommend it in general practice?

Dr. WM. PEPPER replied that he did not think that cavities when left to themselves often heal. In 4000 cases where there were pulmonary cavities, only 81 seemed to be contracting; probably not five ever disappeared; he considered the prognosis to be very serious in this class of cases; he believed the operation to be harmless, and that it benefits the patient in lessening the secretions and, the cough, and so modifying the surface of the cavity as to induce it to cicatrize. In most of the cases treated in this manner no medication was given, and the good result was derived from local treatment. He would not advise it in cases of consolidation with active symptoms when a change of climate is possible. He orders it in cases where the physical signs prove obstinate after proper treatment, especially in cases

of simple cavity, also with slight areas of consolidation when a change cannot be given. His paper was presented simply as a contribution on a vexed subject, but he felt a hesitation as yet in recommending it in general practice, for he was not fully convinced of its value.

Dr. WHITNEY said, as a cavity is almost always in a consolidated lung, and as the indications for the use of the injections are very limited, he did not see their practical value.

Dr. BENNETT, of Ohio, said he lived in a country full of consumption, and that he had seen many cases of small cavity entirely disappear under constitutional treatment alone. believed general treatment to be absolutely necessary, and that local treatment, unless accompanied by general treatment, is useless.

Dr. E. CUTTER, of Massachusetts, said he did not think the operation of plunging needles through the chest would be injurious; but, as he considered the disease in the lung a secondary affection, he did not see what benefit can be given by the injection.

Dr. IRA RUSSELL, of Massachusetts, referred to thirty-four cases of gunshot wound of the chest, of which twelve recovered sufficiently to go home. He thinks the wound made by needles insignificant in comparison to such injuries.

Dr. M. D. WILSON, of Ohio, said, as consumption is a general constitutional disease, it cannot be cured by local treatment; when one cavity might heal, another will be formed; constitutional treatment is essential, and he believed that the chief merit. of the paper was in showing that the operation was harmless.

Dr. P. A. STACKPOLE, of New Hampshire, could not understand why a vote of thanks should be given for this paper. It may demonstrate that the dangers of the operation are trifling, but even then this treatment is not advisable. It can be of little benefit, for, in the majority of cases of cavity, the fatal termination of cases is simply a matter of time.

Dr. J. R. BRONSON, of Massachusetts, desired to explain why he made the motion for a vote of thanks to Dr. PEPPER. He considered the paper a valuable one, that it had been compiled with great care and honesty, and he thought it merited a vote of thanks.

Dr. WHITE, of New York, demanded a division of the motion of Dr. BRONSON.

The Chairman divided the resolution, and the motion to refer to the Committee of Publication was unanimously passed.

A motion, expressing the thanks of the Section to Dr. PEPPER, was made and carried.

Dr. J. V. SHOEMAKER, of Pennsylvania, read his paper, entitled The Treatment of Scrofulous Diseases of the Skin.

Dr. PER LEE PINE, of New York, said he had used the chlorate of potash extensively among children suffering with slight attacks of scarlatina and sore throat; he was much pleased with it, and he was glad to have it indorsed as of value in other diseases.

Dr. J. P. GARRIS!!, of New York, said he did not believe in specific remedies. The eruptive diseases arise from various causes, and are not controlled by any specific remedies. He thinks chlorate of potash valuable in certain diseases, as diphtheria and throat affections, especially when given in a proper

manner.

Dr. W. B. ULRICH, of Pennsylvania, could not agree with the conclusions of the writer. He believes in the value of chlorate of potash in diphtheria and throat troubles; not, however, in small doses, but given freely. He has used it in scrofulous diseases of the skin, but has seen no benefit whatever. He said he was simply astonished at the results reported by Dr. SHOEMAKER.

Dr. R. W. TAYLOR, of New York, asked Dr. SHOEMAKER for his definition of scrofulous diseases of the skin. He considered lupus a scrofulous disease of the skin; could that be cured by the drug? He considered the statement made by Dr. SHOEMAKER as astonishing. He has used chlorate of potash some ten years in certain subacute forms of disease with good results. He asked Dr. SHOEMAKER to specify the forms of disease which he claimed to have cured by chlorate of potash.

Dr. SHOEMAKER gave his definition of scrofulous diseases, quoting Duhring's work; and said he had found benefit in cases where the lymphatic glands were enlarged and broken down, and the skin was in a diseased condition over it.

Dr. H. G. PIFFARD, of New York, considered the results obtained by the writer as remarkable.

Dr. L. D. BULKLEY, of New York, was much astonished at the results given by the writer-his results differ so completely from those obtained by others. He thought that the Section should take some action in the matter; that a committee should be

appointed to test the drug and report to the Section at the next meeting.

Dr. S. SHERWELL, of New York, said that he too was very much astonished at the results given. He could only say that the writer had been remarkably fortunate, as the good results cited had been obtained by no one but Dr. SHOEMAKER.

Dr. D. B. WHITNEY, of New York, thought that due credit should be given to the writer. His paper seemed to be the result of experience, whilst others spoke here merely in a general way. His statements may seem astonishing to some; so are many things in medicine.

Dr. L. D. BULKLEY said the use of the chlorate of potash was nothing new; it had been used for twenty years.

Dr. SHOEMAKER did not wish to be misunderstood; his paper simply applied to a certain class of cases.

Dr. J. J. CALDWELL, of Maryland, moved to refer the paper to the Committee of Publication.

Dr. L. D. BULKLEY moved, as an amendment, to refer to a special committee to experiment and report at next meeting, and to refer the paper to the writer for further consideration.

The amendment was put to a vote, and lost.

The original motion of Dr. CALDWELL was carried.

Dr. JOHN R. UHLER, of Maryland, read his paper on Restorative Remedies, which, on motion, was referred to the Committee of Publication.

The next paper, by Dr. BULKLEY, was made the special order of business at 2 P. M. the next day.

The Section adjourned at 5.30 P. M.

THURSDAY, June 3, 1880.

The Section was called to order by the Chairman at 24 P. M. Dr. BULKLEY not being present, the first paper was by Dr. A. D. ROCKWELL, of New York, on Electrical Treatment of Exophthalmic Goitre.

Dr. C. K. MILLS, of Pennsylvania, spoke of the importance of definite information as to how galvanism affected the sympathetic system, and to what degree. He believed galvanism beneficial in certain cases, but could not see how it can directly affect the sympathetic. He thought it probable that the sympathetic was affected reflexly, if at all. He hardly thought it possible to apply it to the solar plexus. He had used it in ex

ophthalmic goitre, with good results; but he thought this was due to the general tonic effect of electricity, and perhaps to its reflex influence.

Dr. J. J. CALDWELL, of Maryland, was thankful to Dr. RockWELL for his clear statement of the causes and treatment of exophthalmic goitre. He believed that he and Dr. BARTHOLOW had done much to clear up the mysteries of rare, occult neurosis. He believes this to be a disease of the vaso-motor centres. He knows that electricity is a powerful agent in such cases. He recommended Kidder's faradic apparatus, because of its useful and reliable currents, with steady tension.

Dr. GEO. M. BEARD, of New York, said, it is known positively that we can affect the cervical sympathetic by the electrical current, but the effect is small, and it is a question how much the therapeutical results caused by electrical applications are due to this. He would also say, that the results produced by electricity are not caused by electrolysis or by any chemical decomposition. Dr. T. S. HARRISON, of Ontario, asked Dr. ROCKWELL how he applied the electrical current.

Dr. ROCKWELL replied, he generally placed the anode in the fossa behind the ear, and the cathode at the back of the neck; sometimes the positions were reversed, and the anode placed on the epigastrium.

Dr. E. CUTTER, of Massachusetts, declared his belief that the good effects are due to the nerves of nutrition. He believes that changes take place not in seven years but in seven minutes. In the treatment of goitre, he regards diet as an important factor. He has not had good results from electricity except when combined with nutritious food.

On motion of Dr. CALDWELL, of Maryland, the paper was referred to the Committee of Publication.

Dr. J. SOLIS COHEN, of Pennsylvania, described a new method of treating chronic pulmonary complaints by artificial inflation of the lungs, and showed a new instrument by which it could be effected.

Dr. L. DUNCAN BULKLEY, of New York, read his paper on The Use of Sulphur and its Compounds in Diseases of the Skin.

Dr. J. E. CHANCELLOR, of Virginia, differed with Dr. BULKLEY in his estimate of the value of mineral waters-especially the mineral waters of Virginia. He thinks Dr. B. has not given them sufficient credit. He knew that the Virginia sulphur