tion of the code of medical ethics as would allow its members to consult with "any one having a regular medical education." They exclude from their fellowship every physician, not "a white male citizen." The innovation of female practitioners is kept at a wholesome distance, so that no wave of wind may bring near any aura of contagion to infect their professional nobility.

A large part of the population of the State of Pennsylvania consists of members of the Society of Friends. As every body is aware, the Quakers have always held the tenet that women are equals of men, possessing a like moral and intellectual nature, and sustaining like responsibilities. These Quakers entertain no sentimental idea about the exalted and esthetic nature of women, that elevates them above the commonplace pursuits which happen to be lucrative, leaving them for their share in this world's business, only such matters as poetic contemplation, refined idleness, housekeeping, nursing, washing dirty clothes and fouler spittoons, and cheap labor by the week.

Every Quaker is familiar with the Bible, and can cite readily the example of Miriam, the prophetess, who was, conjointly with Moses, her brother, a leader of Israel; of Deborah, who was the judge or president of the twelve tribes, giving the land rest forty years; of Huldah, who counselled. King Josiah; of the women of Galilee, who accompanied the great Teacher Jesus in his journeys, and sustained Him by their ministrations; of the four daughters of the Evangelist Philip, that prophesied; of Phoebe, the diakonos, or minister of the church at Cenchrea; of Priscilla, the fellowlaborer of Paul, besides others. All these had functions to discharge, somewhat incongruous with the sentiment which now exists in relation to the proper sphere of the female sex, and did not find their highest glory set forth in the second chapter of the Book of Esther, or in the Canticles of Solomon; but recognizing themselves to be human beings, they essayed to perform the labors which devolved upon them. The denomination of Friends, taking their authority from such examples, and believing in the voice of the Divine in each

heart; acknowledged the authority and obligation of women to take part in the ministry of religion.

It is not marvellous that the women themselves, in such a population, should assume the right to prosecute scientific and remunerative vocations. The establishment of a medical college, where instruction should be communicated to whomsoever of the sex chose to avail themselves of it, was a very natural step to be taken. It is also to be expected in such a community, that such a movement would be countenanced by the best men of the State. Such has been the case. The Female Medical College at Philadelphia, though not broad in its principles, being of the most strictest sect of the old school, has been sustained by the ablest and most generous thinking men in Pennsylvania; and they believe. that its graduates are entitled to honorable acknowledgment among physicians.

On the 11th of June, Doctor Washington L. Atlee, of Philadelphia, introduced the following preamble and resolution:

"Whereas, The only disqualifications of a member of the medical profession, under our constitution, are irregular medical education, want of good moral and professional standing, and non-observance of the code of medical ethics; and

“Whereas, All laws regulating consultations, based on ethnological, physiological, and psychological distinctions, are against the spirit and letter of our constitution; therefore

"Resolved, That any former action of this society, making distinctions and disqualifications not recognized by our code of ethics, be and the same is hereby repealed."

The practical intended effect of the resolution was to admit to practice in the profession regularly-graduated female physicians. This resolution was discussed by Drs. Mowry, Nebinger, Corson, Stetler, Worthington, King, Horton, Haldeman, Mayburry, and Anawalt.

Doctor Mowry, of Allegheny County, declared that it was his great desire that this society might place herself right in the eyes of the community, and not be in the doubtful position which she seemed to occupy. By the constitution this society had adopted the Code of Ethics of the American

Medical Association. That was sufficient for every purpose, but it had been wrongly interpreted.

Doctor Nebinger, of Philadelphia, made the principal speech against the resolution. He criticised very severely the scientific character of the Female Medical College in that city, and denounced women who attempted to practise medicine as impious, and as arrayed against the decrees of God. He was not present, he said, "to declare that woman was not capable of practising medicine or of high mental culture; but he was here to declare that there was no necessity for dragging her into that position which was not the best for her. Was it necessary at this late hour to call in the aid of the female portion of the community? Were the diseases of the present day so difficult of treatment that the regular profession could not combat them? If so, he would vote for the resolution. But he did not believe it was so.

"The effort of the medical fraternity had always been to lift higher in dignity the profession which they served. Should they now take a step backward? He would not war with Deity; and yet, if he favored the proposition of the gentleman he should be so doing. The great God created man and woman with different physiological features. Did Deity intend that man should nurse babies? Certainly not. His physical organization was such as to prevent it. God determined that she should be the wife and the mother-the two highest offices that any living creature could perform. These two offices gave to woman her crowning dignity and glory. He would do nothing to tempt her, even with pieces of gold or professional position, to neglect her holy offices.

"Could she perform the duties of a physician and of a wife and mother consistently? No, she could not. We had no right to do anything to interfere with the decree of Almighty God that she should be the wife and mother. The whole issue was summed up in this: Are you for God or against God? Certainly they were for God. Then they were opposed to this resolution.

"If the Code of Ethics were so framed that they stood in array against the decrees of God he was against the Code of

Ethics. Jehovah was never wrong. He would not analyze the qualifications of female physicians turned out by the female colleges. That would, perhaps, be no argument, because their colleges were inferior. The college in Philadelphia had attracted much attention. Was it because it was a high, a pure, a noble institution? One of the professors in that institution was an advertising quack, a peddler of nostrums. One was a homœopathist; another a manufacturer and vender of nostrums. We were told they were not there now. But they had been there, and had certified-aye, absolutely certified-to the ability of their female graduates to practise medicine! He had no favors to grant to such an institution.

"Why had these professors been weeded out? Because the whole medical faculty of Philadelphia had published the fact that such professors were in the institution, and it became so odious as to induce the trustees to ask the professors to resign. He declared solemnly that this institution could not be compared with the male colleges of Philadelphia, any more than could a rush-light be compared with the sun. It was inferior in every respect.

"Pass this resolution, and the veriest quacks among them could compel physicians of standing to consult with them.

"He would not say nay to women who chose to practise medicine; he would have no legislation against them; but he would have legislation which should protect the legitimate profession from contamination; which should not encourage woman to desert her sphere; he would have her do something better. The matter had been discussed a year ago. It had been gone over thoroughly."

Doctor J. G. Stetler, of Philadelphia, asked the distinguished mover of the resolution if he intended it to cover all classes? If so, then physicians would be obliged to consult with negroes, men and women.

Doctor Atlee replied that he was at all times ready to enter the sick room to alleviate suffering, whether he associated with negroes or not. He respected and loved all humanity. He knew of no objection to a consultation with negroes. Be

sides, the question had just been agitated all over this free republic, and it had been enacted that there should be no distinction between classes in this country.

Doctor King, formerly Surgeon-General of Pennsylvania, also spoke in favor of the resolution. He declared that capability and courtesy and good character were all which the rules required, or ought to require. He wanted this question settled. It had been up for three years. He wanted it settled now, and settled on just and equitable grounds. If it was wrong for women to teach and practise medicine, let. it be so declared. If woman must starve, if she must allow her children to starve, because she could not do all that men could do, let it be so declared; but he should not declare it.

This sentiment discomfited the obsolete fogies of the society, who were greatly annoyed that so eminent a member of the society had declared in favor of the rightful equality of women. The liberal members, of course, applauded his remarks enthusiastically.

Doctor John L. Atlee, of Lancaster County, who had spoken in Washington in favor of female physicians, said that he had never heard a word against the Female Medical College at Philadelphia, as it is now constituted. He declared that there is nothing whatever in the Code of Ethics to prevent women or colored persons from practising medicine. At the recent national convention at Washington, a report had been made leaving the entire subject in the discretion of the profession. It was not deemed necessary to amend the Code of Ethics by making any distinction between the sexes. He thought the matter should be left with the physicians themselves. For his part, there were some physicians with diplomas in their pockets, with whom he would never consent to consult. Under the Code he held that he had a right to consult with female physicians, if he desired to do so, in a question of life and death. Simple liberty to consult with whom they pleased, under urgent circumstances, was all that the resolution claimed, and he thought it ought to

pass.