SECOND CONVERSATION.

Moonshiners do not practise what they preach-They retain only the title for purposes of business.

Dr. Warren. I omitted to say to you in our last conversation that, while it is true that many of the class of gentlemen who have been so long and so cruelly ostracized by the code, have indeed declared that they no longer rely exclusively, or in fact in any measure, upon the impossible infinitesimals of Hahnemann as a remedy for disease, giving instead our own medicines in full doses. They still adhere to the doctrine of similia similibus curantur, and cannot therefore consistently drop their peculiar and distinctive name; but the fact that they hold this doctrine ought not to prevent our consulting with them, since their practice does not differ from ours. If they wish to open the bowels they do not give opium or morphine, which would be in accordance with their doctrine, but they give castor oil or epsom salts or some other recognized cathartic in good full

doses. In case you were to consult with them and should wish to give any remedy in your materia medica, they would not object. They only preach, but do not practise similia similibus curantur. What do you care about their

preaching?

Dr. Putnam. Nothing. Only that it is apparent that both their preaching, and the peculiar title which they continue to retain, is intended to attract those clients who still believe in homoeopathic doctrines, and who think that honest men practise what they preach; and who, therefore, innocently suppose that by employing these gentlemen they are sure of being treated with their favorite medicine-the genuine and original Hahnemannic moonshine. To sail under false colors on the high seas is called piracy, and these gentlemen are sailing under false colors.*

* Dr. Fowler, President of the New York Medico-Chirurgical Society (Homœopathic), speaking of the title "Homœopathist" as heretofore employed by himself and his professional brethren, says: "The theory contained in the term is not to any appreciable extent entertained at the present day; it does misrepresent the mass of those who allow it to be used to distinguish their belief or practice; and a proper regard for the correct appreciation of their intelligence by the public, and of honesty in themselves, demands that the term be put away in the garret as worn-out medical furniture, which has no fitting space in the edifice of real science.”

I could respect the honest simplicity with which the earlier pupils of Hahnemann accepted of the doctrine of infinitesimals, under which practice it was impossible to say whether the medicine (!) was acting under the law of sẻmilia similibus or not-but I cannot respect the Homœopathist who repudiates homoeopathy, and who gives a dose of castor oil to overcome constipation, and still pretends that he is following the teachings of Hahnemann in any respect whatever.

You may think it desirable, in certain points of view, to countenance this fraud, but for myself I do not; nor have I ever felt that my liberties were seriously encroached upon when the medical profession adopted a code which declared consultations with those who practised such impositions to be disreputable. To say the least, I am not over-anxious to extend to them the hand of professional fellowship.

You do not seem to understand that the code does not affect your rights as a free American citizen. It is not a part of the State or Federal law. The code is simply a social arrangement, of a purely voluntary character.

Dr. Warren. Beg your pardon, but I do understand that. Yet I submit whether it is

w

wise or liberal to voluntarily place ourselves under such restraints. I know as well as you do that moonshine is not medicine, and that some Homœopathists have themselves publicly declared that it is not; and it is probable that I would not consult with any of them if the code were abolished, but I am unwilling to be bound by a written compact not to do so.

Dr. Putnam. It is unfortunate for your cause that your friends have not been as outspoken upon this latter point as you have. They seem generally unwilling to say publicly that they hold the doctrines and practices of the disciples of Hahnemann in honest contempt, and that they do not expect to counsel with them; indeed, they have publicly said that they intend to do so; and it is this very fact which seems, in my opinion, to render a code necessary.

If every man practised virtue and morality strictly, no church organizations would be necessary, unless it were for the sole purpose of propagating a religious faith or dogma. Indeed, there would be but little need of law, or restraints of any kind.

THIRD CONVERSATION.

Code of Ethics in law, divinity, and in war-A representative of the "Slyhooven" sect in law-Why is a medical code needed here, and not in Europe?

Dr. Putnam. Does your zeal hold out in the cause of Liberty?

Dr. Warren. It is not one whit abated. If a code of ethics is needed in the profession of medicine, why is it not needed, also, in the professions of law and divinity?

Dr. Putnam. So far as the lawyers are concerned, I reply, that law is in many respects like the military art-a profession of war, in which it is deemed justifiable often to resort to deception, and to openly declare that you believe or intend to do what you do not believe or intend to do. A code of ethics made to sit easily and comfortably upon a lawyer would have to be as loose as a Roman toga. It must permit him to insult the opposing counsel in the presence of the Court; to blacken the character of witnesses whose reputation he knows to be as pure as his own, and to do a thousand