Gambar halaman

Dr. Talbot moved as a substitute that we adhere to the hour as agreed upon and adopted.

The question was disscussed briefly by Drs. Julia Holmes Smith, T. G. Comstock, Pemberton Dudley, C. E. Fisher and B. W. James. The substitute was lost and the original motion adopted.

President McClelland subsequently announced that he had been in conference with President Mitchell on the subject, and they had agreed that hereafter the Institute should meet at 9.30 and the Congress at 10.30 A.m., and that such would be the order.

The selection of the place and time of the next annual session of the Institute was, on motion of Dr. Fisher, made the special order for Thursday morning, immediately after the consideration of the reports on time limit of the sessions and on revision of the By-laws.

Dr. Henry M. Smith, of New York City, moved, and the Institute, by vote, ordered that the Board of Censors present the names of candidates for membership in alphabetical order.

Dr. R. B. Rush, Chairman of the Board of Censors, asked that the thirty-eight applicants for membership reported yesterday, be elected. They were duly elected.

The Board of Censors reported, through Dr. C. B. Kinyon, the names of twenty-five additional candidates for membership. The Institute then adjourned till 9.30 on Wednesday morning.


May 31, 1893. The Institute came to order at 9.30 A.M., pursuant to adjournment, the President in the chair.

Dr. R. B. Rush, Chairman of the Board of Censors, moved the election to membership of those whose names had been announced on Tuesday morning. They were duly elected.

Dr. I.T. TALBOT said: Mr. President, I have a matter of historical interest and value to present to the Institute. There has in some way a grave mistake crept into the chronological list of the Institute, and which has been continued from year to year for several years. The General Secretary, not feeling himself empowered to correct what had appeared as an inaccuracy for so many years, now suggests that the Institute take the proper steps to correct the error. The Institute, when first established, was very simple in its organi


zation, and it was the vote of the body, at the first session, that it should not have a president, but simply be presided over by a chair

There was held a caucus the year before, and the person was nominated and then elected at the beginning of the meeting, and this person was known as chairman of the meeting. That continued from the year 1844, the formation of the Institute, down to 1865. In the proceedings of that year there appears for the first time a president and vice-president, and from that time on down, the preceding chairmen have been published as presidents. This publication falsifies the records and should be corrected. I move, sir, that the Secretary be directed to correct the inaccuracy referred to.


Dr. II. M. SMITH: I would like to call attention of the Institute to the fact that next year is the semi-centennial anniversary of the American Institute of Homeopathy, organized in 1844. In 1888 there was prepared a roster of all the members of the Institute from the organization up to date; that list, as you may imagine, has considerably grown, and I have here the old list with the additions. I would move, sir, that this list be corrected for públication up to date, either for publication in this volume of TRANSACTIONS or in the volume of next year. Dr. Dudley has suggested that it should be prepared in time for this year's volume, inasmuch as the usual scientific proceedings will not be published in our TRANSACTIONS, but will doubtless be taken in hand independently by the World's Congress Auxiliary ; our own volume will, therefore, be smaller, so that it would be a good plan to insert this corrected list in the volume of this present Institute session. In 1876 there was a synopsis of the TRANSACTIONS of the preceding years begun, and Dr. Strong for some years afterwards continued it up to 1882–3. I would also suggest that that abstract be corrected, added to, and published in our present year's volume, so that any member can look back and see just what was done without the necessity of reading each volume. It would be a general index of what was done, because the old volumes of our TRANSACTIONs are fast disappearing, and of course will not be reprinted. I therefore move that a committee be appointed to revise our roster of members, bringing it up to date to be published in this year's TRANSACTIONS, and also that the abstract of proceedings as published in 1876 be republished and brought up to date.


Drs. H. M. Smith and T. M. Strong were appointed the committee.

DR. COWPERTHWAITE: On behalf of the Censors I desire to report on a matter which concerns the status of Dr. C. E. Fisher. I will not need to enter into the merits of this case--it is well known to all—but will simply say that the Chairman of the Board of Censors has very thoroughly investigated the question, and we report unanimously in favor of placing Dr. C. E. Fisher back to the date upon which he made his application, provided he pays dues for the intervening years, and we find there is no reason why this should not be done. I may say, in addition, for those who are not wholly familiar with this motion, that Dr. Fisher made application to the Institute for membership in 1873, and the matter was deferred on account of the fact that some objection was made to the college from which he graduated ; after that he was graduated from another school. In 1884 he made a second application, and was recognized by the Institute. He thinks it but justice to himself that he be restored to the original date, inasmuch as it was through no fault of his that the objection was made, and as he is willing to pay up all back dues.

On motion of Dr. Kinne the report of the Board of Censors was accepted.

Dr. Kinne also moved that the recommendation contained in the report be adopted.

DR. I. T. TALBOT: The question is upon the antedating of the membership of one honored in this Institute for the good work he has done, the activity which he has shown in the cause of Homeopathy here and elsewhere; a member who has been honored with the position of Vice-President of the American Institute of Homeopathy. He is a friend of all of us; one whom we all regard, and whose future we look forward to with the greatest of anticipations and hope; one concerning whom there can be little doubt regarding his fealty and sincerity to the Institute. But there is a very serious question, more serious than that which concerns the individual ; and that is whether we as an Institute, now nearly 50 years old, can go back into its past years and falsify its records. It is a question which throws a doubt upon all the records that we have; if we have the right at any time to go back and change matters of fact which occurred years and years ago, we leave ourselves open to the charge of being unreliable, and mix up our records. It is in accordance with the motion just carried here that we should correct our records. It is in accordance with the past history of this Institute in 1866 or '67 that a man came before the Institute and wanted his connection with the Institute antedated three years. He had sent, at the very beginning, his application for membership; it had been mislaid or kept in the pocket of one of the officers of the Institute, who had forgotten to present it; this man was elected in 1847, and his application was not antedated. He said it was no fault of his that the application rested so long in the hands of a negligent official; it was the fault of the Institute that he was not sooner elected, and he demanded that he should be considered one of the members of the Institute for an earlier date than that upon which his application had been ultimately received and acted on by the Institute. But the Institute voted unanimously that his date should not be changed. The case before us now is one that came clearly before the Institute. I was myself then actively interested. It came to the Institute in 1873 at Cleveland with a diploma from a college which was then in doubt, and which very soon afterwards ceased its existence. Now, I cannot say how old the young man was at that time; but he refuses to tell me how old he is to-day ; but my impression is that he was not 21 years old ; that he was 20; and I advised him in a friendly way never to let a bit of suspicion or a blot rest upon his title of doctor of medicine ; that he was young, and that he should take another course in some college and receive a diploma from an institution that there could be no doubt about. He did that. He did it nobly and well, and his diploma now can have no question about it. He didn't apply again for eleven years; he doesn't come in on his first application ; but eleven years afterwards he made a new application and was elected to membership in 1884. Now, he comes to us and asks us—I won't say with undue activity-he asks us to antedate or change our record to make him hereafter as of date 1873. I cannot believe that this Institute will take such a step to throw a doubt upon all its records, as this act would unquestionably do.

DR. FISHER : It may seem a little personal to present my own side of the case. I had not intended speaking on the question, but the injustice that has been done me by the last speaker is too great to permit my keeping silent. I want to explain the situation. I want nothing but justice. This Institute has honored me repeatedly and I ask no favors other than those that belong of right to me and to every member. And I beg that when a vote is taken upon this question, the “personal equation " be not considered. The facts are these. In 1872 I was graduated from the Detroit Homeopathic College, which suspended its labors when the Ann Arbor University was established. In 1873, whether 15 or 40 years old, I was old enough to satisfy my constituents, and I went to Cleveland from Kansas as a delegate from the Kansas State Homoeopathic Society to the American Institute. It was a revolutionary session. One of the professors in the Detroit College was an advertiser. There are some of the honored members of the Institute who were at that time in the same line. This college on the lake meant a fight with the college on the river, and hence my application in the city of the college by the lake was held in abeyance, because I was a graduate of the college on the river. My application for that reason was laid on the table until the status of the college on the river should be established to the satisfaction of the college on the lake. In 1874 this Institute elected a member of the Detroit college to membership. My application was not acted on,-was not taken from the table by the Institute through no fault of my own; it was clearly a case of sacrificing an applicant of a rival college. It should have been taken up; it lay there for eleven years. I was at a point so remote from the meetings of this Institute; I was in feeble health ; I had gone to the frontier; and I have no apology to make for not having been able financially for eleven years to get back to the Institute. I took my second graduation at Pulte College. I am proud of her. But I say that my membership should have begun from the time that I first applied, and the application should have been taken from the table as soon as I had complied with the request of the Institute's committee, and it was not right to date me from my later application. In 1875, this same objectionable professor, Dr. Spinney, who had caused the Detroit college to be regarded with disfavor, was an applicant for and was elected a member of the Institute. I did not ask the Institute to antedate my application, because the status of the college was not defined until some years later. This does not falsify the records. It corrects a palpable error. If the Institute failed to take up the application through oversight of its constituted officers, it is always right to correct its errors; and your Board of Censors, to whom you have

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »