consequently are cut off in what in modern scientific jargon has been styled the struggle for existence; a struggle which, however interesting it may be for philosophers to contemplate among other races, I humbly submit is contrary to all the instincts of the medical art and true morality to rest content with.

I conclude, then, that the only certain way to lower the deathrate in Europe, is to slacken the birth-rate until such time as butcher meat and wheat are as cheap here as in the most fertile of our colonies.

The moral of all I have said is as follows, in the words of John Stuart Mill: "Little improvement can be expected in morality until the production of large families is regarded in the same light as drunkenness, or other physical excess;" this observation, of course, holding true only for Europe, Asia, and the over-peopled States of the Republic of the West.

Medicine of Paris have not two children on an average in their families. Of 61 medical men, including Velpeau, Nélaton, Trousseau, etc., I found 109 children, i. e., not two each. And it is well known that in France no customs dangerous to the health or life of the mother or to the sanctity of human life prevail. I wish I could say that we hear equally good reports from Boston or New York, or other of the long-peopled cities of America.

THE RELATION OF THE MEDICAL AND LEGAL PRO

FESSIONS TO CRIMINAL ABORTION.

BY EDWARD H. PARKER, M.D.,

NEW YORK.

WITHIN a few years, in one of the counties of the State of New York three cases of attempts to produce criminal abortion. have been brought to light, and I propose to make them the occasion for some observations upon the relations of the two professions of medicine and law to this crime.

CASE I. A physician was called to see a young unmarried woman suffering from a profuse uterine hemorrhage. On his inquiring as to what was the matter, she at once said she was having a miscarriage. What brought it on? Dr. operated for the purpose. Her lover also said that he took her to the doctor's office, and paid him for his services. The operator had left town, and so she had to be cared for by others. The medical attendant at once put himself in communication with the proper law officers, and followed their directions. The girl recovered. Her affidavit was made as to the facts in the case; the doctor and the lover were arrested; a hearing was at once given them before a justice. The counsel for the accused was allowed to bully and coax the girl into a series of statements entirely dif ferent from those of the affidavit, and the accused were at once discharged.

CASE II. A woman, supposing herself to be pregnant, submitted to an operation by an ignorant and blind woman for the purpose of producing an abortion. Immediately after the operation the patient complained of intense abdominal pain, was nauseated, grew rapidly worse, and died in four days. A coroner's jury (the coroner was a medical man) heard the evidence of another woman who was present at the operation, and saw a

metallic instrument passed under the bedclothes and soon withdrawn covered with blood, and who also was with the patient till she died; heard the evidence of the physicians who made the post-mortem examination that there had been no pregnancy, and that the fundus of the uterus had been perforated by some instrument which caused a fatal peritonitis; and brought a verdict in accordance with these facts. The coroner committed the operator. The grand jury brought in two indictments against her. When the indictment came to trial, the woman who was present at the operation did not happen to be in the court room, though she arrived a few minutes later, and the judge ordered the prisoner to be discharged. Having been again brought to trial on the other indictment, her counsel argued that she could not be put in jeopardy of her life twice for the same offence, and the judge again ordered her to be discharged.

CASE III. A young woman, finding herself illegally pregnant, had an abortion produced by a doctor. Being very ill and supposing she was about to die, she made an ante-mortem statement of the facts, and gave the names of the man and of the doctor. She finally recovered. Under the promise of immunity to herself and her lover they consented to give their evidence, and the doctor was tried, convicted, and sent to the State prison. Before half his term had expired he was pardoned by the governor or rather, to use the language of the pardon clerk, the governor "commuted his sentence from four years to two years with deductions." The pardon clerk also writes as follows: "Both the judge and the district attorney have written favorable letters in the prisoner's behalf." Copies of these letters are in my possession, and the material points of them, for my present purpose, are as follows: The district attorney says: "Referring to yours of date, A. B. was convicted on the testimony of C. D., the girl upon whom the miscarriage was produced, and of E. F., who was the girl's friend, and was present when the operation was performed, and procured the same to be done. The girl was sick but a short time, but during her illness disclosed when, where, and by whom the miscarriage was produced. A. B. has been a physician in this city during my residence here, and for a long time before, and this is the first offence to my knowledge. He lived in the outskirts of the city and was rather a quiet man, and as I never had any occasion to

employ him as a physician, and never heard him discussed much, I cannot say anything about his character previous to his conviction, except that he was a peaceable, inoffensive, and orderly citizen. After his trial, and during his trial, he was very much affected, and appeared to me more than ordinarily concerned about his unfortunate condition."

The judge writes as follows: "A. B. is a farmer's son, with good abilities, and fair education. He somehow has got down in life, and is very poor. The person on whom he practised was a young girl. She suffered her condition to continue until a very advanced state of pregnancy, and then insisted on the abortion being procured, against the advice of the father of the child, against all representations of danger; and, notwithstanding the young man offered to marry her, she still insisted. The young man made application to A. B., and he, in an evil moment, yielded. The operation nearly resulted in the girl's death, but she finally recovered. I have not learned of any other offence against the doctor." After a brief reference to the convict's relations, the judge adds: "If the governor could see in this statement anything which would induce him to pardon the convicted person, I should be very grateful, as it will relieve people from a sharp disgrace, in some measure."

Now, if we analyze these cases in the relations of the two professions to them, we find that the medical profession is to be charged with two of the operations, but that it is to be credited with the efforts to bring all three criminals to justice. The legal profession is to be credited with a conviction in Case III., and to be charged with the escape of the guilty parties in Cases I. and II., as well as the discharge of the one convicted before he had served out half his term.

But let us examine these three cases a little more minutely. In Case I. the law officer, by including the doctor and the young man in the same indictment, closed the mouth of the latter, so that he could not be used as a witness. The only admissible evidence, then, was that of the young woman herself, and she was willing enough to shield both. It was no matter what she had told others; so long as she lived their testimony could not be used. The accused person in this case escaped by the blunder (whether stupid or adroit I cannot say) of the law officer.

In Case II., where the prisoner was charged with causing the

death of a woman-stabbed, in fact, just as much as if a dagger had been plunged into the body—the prosecuting officer was so heedless as not to have taken care that his principal witness was in court; and the judge did not consider it important enough to delay the business so long as is often done, when the dispute is only about the soundness of a horse.

Case III. is so plain that it goes to the jury, conviction follows, and the sentence of four years is the penalty; but when a year and a half had passed, the prisoner is liberated by order of one lawyer-who happens to be governor-and with the consent, if not recommendation, of the prosecuting officer and judge who tried him.

Now, it is not at all my intention to throw any blame upon governor, judge, or district attorney, personally. They are all men of ability and excellent standing, who cannot for a moment be supposed to be influenced by any unworthy motives; quite the contrary. But they are all lawyers, and seem to me fairly to represent the prevalent feeling of their profession as to this crime.

That position is apparently this-that the crime is against the mother mainly, if not entirely, and that the death of the foetus in utero is an unimportant affair. The judge in his letter seems to make a point against the girl that "she suffered her condition to continue until a very advanced state of pregnancy," not remembering, perhaps not knowing, that she thus increased her own chances of recovery.

The district attorney also says, "the girl was sick but a short time" in a sort of apologetic manner. Nowhere does the destruction of the foetus come into consideration, so far as we can judge.

This peculiarity of the legal profession arises, I apprehend, from the old notion of "quickening," as representing some mysterious change then occurring which places the child in a different condition. We know that the phrase "quick with child" occurs in different laws, and some penalties for crimes committed by a woman in the condition described by these words are delayed in their execution. This "quickening" is simply the recognition, by the mother or others examining her, of motion on the part of the child in utero. Feeble at first, the motion increases, till it sometimes seems as if the young child were about to leap into