wishes for the success of the journal. We know that his promises of good things in the future will be hailed with delight by his many friends in this country. We hope to give very soon a review of his new and interesting "Manual of Therapeutics." It is with considerable satisfaction that we regard the rapid growth of our Homœopathic Medical Dispensary, during the last five years. In 1873, 1,062 patients were cared for in Boston proper, at the dispensary rooms or at their homes. During the year just passed, that number has swelled to 13,289, and to these patients 32,615 prescriptions have been given. In 1873, the poor from all parts of the city were obliged to go to one building for treatment. Now there are provided for them three places in different parts of the city, by which arrangement their time, shoe-leather, and aching limbs are saved, which certainly ought to be regarded in their cases as well as with rich persons. On the other hand, the questions often occur, Are we not doing too much for the poor in the way of free medical attendance? and is there no way of withholding the benefits of such charitable institutions from that large class of fraudulent impostors who are abundantly able to pay, but yet, lost to all shame of being considered objects of charity, or else hoping to escape the observation of friends in so doing, sponge on the benevolent, cheat the neighboring physicians out of the business to which they are justly entitled, and more or less corrupt the state of morals of the community. Within a month a charity patient drove up to our college branch in a stylish team, although generally such impostors assume the garb of indigence, and often look poorer than the really honest poor. One of our dispensary physicians not long ago discovered, in another department from his own, one of his private patients, who owned the house she lived in unencumbered. You can imagine his feelings, as well as the expression of his countenance. We beg to be excused from the imputation of desiring to pass these off as new thoughts, which have just flashed from our gigantic intellect. They are as old as the hills; time and time again have they been presented in far more forcible language; homoeopaths and allopaths and eclectics are agreed in denouncing this state of things in every city in the world in which there is a dispensary. But so far we are not aware that any real remedy for this evil has been suggested. We cordially invite any one who thinks tha the can suggest something practical to embody his ideas in an article for the GAZETTE. It is not a mere theoretical speculation, but a question which comes right home to many of the physicians (especially the younger ones) in our large cities. The emoluments of our editorial office have not as yet placed us in a position to offer a very large prize for the best article on the subject, but we know that its author will receive the heartfelt thanks of the profession. CALCUTTA, the capital of the British East Indian Empire, was chosen, some years ago, as the seat of a university, established under the patronage of the home government, and supplied, for the most part, with English professors and teachers. According to the "Monthly Homœopathic Review" (English), from which we derive our facts, it has already "taken a high place among kindred universities," and is "the finest outbirth of the efforts of the government to secure, by teaching and example, the higher education of the natives of India." It is designed to be "conducted in such a manner as to free it from narrow prejudice and bigotry." In this laudable design it would seem their efforts have not been crowned with absolute success. On the contrary, the following account, which, for want of room, must be made as brief as possible, shows that narrowness and selfish prejudice are not confined to any particular nationality. We should premise that, by the constitution of the university, "all its graduates are eligible to the honor of fellowship, the fellows being chosen by the viceroy. Every fellow is de facto a member of the senate, a governing body of the university, out of which a few are chosen as the executive, and are termed the syndicate. Besides these bodies there is a Faculty attached to each branch of study, and to medicine among others. This Faculty is only a deliberative body. It has no executive power in itself, but simply gives advice or opinion on matters referred to it by the senate. The Faculty consists of the professors and a few others chosen by the senate from among their own members, to act with them in their deliberations. Not many years ago a native Mahendra Lal Sircar by name – took the degree of M. D. at this university, after having brilliantly distinguished himself as a student, being regarded with great interest and pride by all connected with the establishment. He immediately went into successful practice in Calcutta as a member of the allopathic school, but soon became interested in homoeopathy, and finally embraced it with an enthusiasm proportioned to that with which he had formerly opposed it. He started a medical journal (the Calcutta "Journal of Medicine") in the interest of his new views, though he endeavored" to make it the vehicle of truly catholic doctrine," and it He seems in soon took a notable stand in local medical literature. every way to have ably sustained himself, and to have rapidly gained a commanding position in the community. In 1870 — after his open advocacy of the new school of medicine he was chosen a Fellow of the University. Presently, a vacancy in the Faculty of medicine occurring, Dr. Sircar was appointed by the senate to fill the place. Hereupon a ferment began, which in less than a month resulted in a meeting of the Faculty, at which they passed the following resolution: "In consequence of the addition of Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar's name to the Faculty of medicine by a resolution of the senate, passed at their late meeting on the 27th of April, the Faculty regret exceedingly that they are compelled to point out to the syndicate that they are unable to associate themselves, as a Faculty of medicine, with a member who professes and practises homœopathy, an inability of which probably the senate were not aware when the nomination was made. They trust, therefore, that the syndicate may be able to remove the present difficulty by the transfer of Dr. Mahendra Lal Sircar's name to another Faculty, or in some other manner." The syndicate therefore requested the senate to reconsider the appointment. Meantime Dr. Sircar, being a man of spirit and not disposed tamely to submit to injustice, addressed a letter to the authorities of the university. We regret that we cannot give much of its substance, for it is a paper of deep interest in every view. He says, in concluding it, "I claim the title of physician, and I claim the right thereunto appertaining, namely, liberty of reason to search after truth, and liberty of conscience to acknowledge truth whenever and wherever found. In my hard struggles as a physician, as a practitioner of the most difficult art on earth, I have only endeavored to exercise that right. If the medical faculty should declare that I have thereby forfeited their confidence, I should respectfully beg to relieve the senate of further responsibility in the matter, and ask them to remove my name at once from the Faculty. My last request is that this letter appear in the proceedings of the meeting." The senate referred back to the Faculty their resolution for reconsideration, together with Dr. Sircar's letter, to assist them in its redigestion. Of course, as their conclusion was already foregone, they did not follow the hint to show themselves rational men, but further stultified themselves by an evasive attempt to show Dr. Sircar that he "entirely misapprehended the motives which have influenced the Faculty," etc. They of course adhere to their position, they are still sorry that they cannot," as a Faculty of medicine, associate with a homœopathist." "A certain degree of consensus of opinion as to first principles being necessary in a body of men who are placed in a position of advisers of the university, without which their discussions would be unprofitable," etc. They are afraid, also, of imperilling the interests of the medical department of the university in England, where at that time certain legislation was going forward concerning the colonial universities and their recognition by the home universities and the government. In short, they were governed by what seemed to them. sharp policy, and not by high-minded love of truth and justice. So, as already intimated, they adhered to their first resolution, and thus gave Dr. Sircar another and better opportunity to answer them. This he did effectually, going over the entire ground, not of his personal grievances, but of the truth as to the relation of the two schools of medicine. His answer is long, and we cannot quote any small portion without injustice to the whole. The upshot of the whole trial of strength between the parties was that Dr. Sircar was sustained by the senate by a deliberate vote and a respectable majority. Among the best things occurring during this truly interesting controversy is the speech of one of the Faculty, Dr. Mitra, a Hindoo and an allopath, at the meeting last referred to. His quiet strength and independent adherence to truth, his manly recognition of Dr. Sircar's superior position in the contest, and his clear and fearless statement of the whole case, should put the English Faculty to shame. When Dr. Sircar had thus vindicated himself and had been thus handsomely sustained by this generous opponent of his school of medicine, he gracefully withdrew. HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL DISPENSARY, BOSTON. Ar the annual meeting of the corporation, held at 14 Burroughs Place, Jan. 8, 1879, the following gentlemen were elected OFFICERS FOR 1879. President, Hon. Otis Clapp, 3 Beacon Street. Secretary, I. T. Talbot, M. D., 66 Marlborough Street. Trustees, Hon. Jacob Sleeper, 14 Ashburton Place; George Russell, M. D., 14 Lynde Street; S. Whitney, M. D., Massachusetts Homœo pathic Hospital; S. Jennison, Esq., 186 Washington Street; Chester Guild, 51 High Street; Alonzo Boothby, M. D., 60 Temple Street; Herbert C. Clapp, M. D., 544 Tremont Street; Edward P. Brown, Esq., 82 Devonshire Street. The report of the treasurer, H. C. Angell, M. D., was as follows: The property of the Dispensary consists of bank stock, gold bonds, railroad stock, and real estate, and is estimated at $18,384. The average cost per patient for care and medicine has been about six and one half cents, or a little more than two cents for each prescription. The report of the superintendent, H. C. Clapp, M. D., showed the work of the Dispensary, for the year 1878, to be as follows: These figures show quite a gratifying increase. In 1876, 7,702 patients received 21,016 prescriptions, and in 1877, 10,011 patients received 27,394 prescriptions. |