geons, and I beg to thank you most sincerely for the early information you were so kind as to give me of it." Of Liston's case of amputation, which is usually supposed to have carried with it extraordinary conviction, Sir James Clarke says, "The man said that he felt something was doing with his leg, but it was not pain." Yet he does not hesitate to avow that "it is really a marvellous thing." December 17, Richard Bright, in spite of information from Guy's Hospital that they had completely failed to produce the desired state of intoxication, apologetically writes, "However, there must have been some want of skill in this first attempt, and I can scarcely doubt that future experience will lead to better success." Lastly, Dr. Forbes adds to the American communications Liston's case, and writes, "I have sent copies of the enclosed to all the newspapers, so that I hope all the world will soon have the great news.

Here was the effect of evidence upon the scientific mind of Europe. Now it is unquestionably very respectable to doubt. The world may not question the judgment of those who suspend their judgment. Yet there are times when doubt is sophistry, and indecision culpable. Richard Bright did not delay to forward the news to Guy's Hospital, "that no time might be lost in affording so great a relief to any who might be in the unfortunate condition of being obliged to undergo a serious operation.

Ought not the motive of relieving human pain to induce the appointed officers of public charities to ask what is the nature of this anodyne, in whose behalf united nations rise to testify? Is it supposed that one of these gentlemen would lose his own arm without invoking ether? Shall none remonstrate, when those who are appointed to alleviate human suffering in administering the accumulated charities of years virtually avow that, having tried no experiments, and comparatively ignorant of the subject, they consider that

the decision of mankind is wrong,

and, acting upon this avowal, condemn, not themselves, nor yet the reasoning community who resist their influence, but their helpless hospital patients, to the horrors of the knife?

If these consequences were limited to the sphere of a few institutions, the public would have a proportionally limited interest in the subject; but the wide-spread influence which such institutions exercise upon their own section of the country, and upon the large community of which they are the scientific centre, as well as the indirect influence they may have exercised upon governments, render it imperative at least to exhibit the actual value of the influence they choose to exert.

Equally futile were the objections to the new and patent method upon the ground of quackery and professional etiquette. Such considerations should fall before a question of this magnitude; and as to the fact, professional custom does not sanction such objections.

A few words upon the patent may not be here inappropriate. Discoverers in art tax the world for a pecuniary equivalent. In the higher atmosphere of science, which deals with abstract truth, it is not easy, nor is it usual, thus to extort a value for any application growing out of discovery. It is well that a line should be drawn between discoveries in pure science, which enlarge the sphere of the intellect or the boundaries of permanent knowledge, and the transitory and less disinterested labors directed to the amelioration of a narrower circle and a briefer term.

It does not harmonize with our better impulses, that a great invention in the art of relieving human suffering should be in any way conditional. I believe that nations would have emulated each other in meeting any liability generously abandoned to them as a debt of honor.

Yet it

should be remembered that the question of patent is very insignificant compared with the discovery itself, or the gratitude due to it. Besides, secrets are common, and perhaps justly so, in the profession with which this discovery had an intimate connection in its early history, and where a patent is not a subject of comment.

Some of the journals seem to have been indignant at the announcement of this patent by a regular physician. I investigated and published some of the first experiments, by the permission of those concerned in making them, and, at their stipulation, announced the patent, with its extenuating circumstances. That the patent was an error of judgment, as well as a violation of custom, I had no doubt, and I vainly endeavored, as far as my influence might weigh, to prevent taking the final steps for procuring it. I even urged an appeal to interest, the force of which has been fully verified in this case; namely, that when the burden of sustaining his position falls on the patentee, and not upon the violator of the patent, nor upon the government who grants it, an invention may be so valuable as to be worthless to the patentee in a pecuniary point of view. In other words, the encroachment of the multitude may become too formidable for the resistance of an individual. Finding such expostulation of no avail, and as an humble instrument in the announcement of a great discovery, I did what I should be most ready to do every week, if by so doing I were able to accelerate, even by a few days only, the ability of the world to relieve human suffering. Those who were most indignant at the patent seem to have been slowest to grant ether to their patients. A fear of "quackery" was instrumental in persuading Congress to withhold the agency of ether, when it might have assuaged the agony of the wounded soldier. Let us hope that such nice discriminators have no more to lay to their consciences than a violation of profes

sional etiquette, like that of announcing and using a patent right by which a man is lulled to slumber while his leg is amputated.

A want of ability has been displayed in confounding the questions of ether patent and ether inhalation. Those who have declaimed against the ether patent, upon this side of the Atlantic, have found it very difficult to give a candid hearing to the separate question of ether insensibility. But it was not so abroad. In England, scientific discrimination far outweighed any discreditable feeling of prejudice or jealousy. The very unimportant question of patent was soon at rest. This error of custom or of taste was forgotten; and the united scientific world abandoned themselves to a determination of the real value of the discovery. No opportunity for experiment was lost, no evidence rejected. The whole medical community gave themselves to the work, and in a short time most honorably avowed that the discovery of etherization was not second to the discovery by their own Jenner. Let us believe that in the country of its birth prejudice against ether inhalation will now yield to a recognition of its value.

An impartial consideration of the question, "Who was the discoverer of ether insensibility to the pain of surgical operations?" will be best attained by a previous consideration of the abstract question of discovery, reserving for its conclusion a special application of the principles illustrated by it to this special subject.

Why was the discovery not made before? Why did no one discern the value of the exhilarating agent which had attracted the attention of so many?

Because the human mind is fettered by long custom. It runs in the channels of routine. First diverted from its course by some little obstacle its current swells and

deepens, bearing down solid quilly in its distorted bed. steps, guided by the mind of successive generations. The pathway turns here and there to avoid some little inequality, and the old man and the child follow the winding track. Mind follows where mind has been. Few turn aside to analyze the difficulties which discouraged others. That a thing has not been is to most men, perhaps justly, a reason why it will not be; and here is the office of philosophic incredulity which doubts the track of custom.

opposition that it may roll tranWatch the tide of human foot

It is quite obvious that such incredulity may emanate from widely differing sources. It often grows out of depth and originality of intellect, of capacity which takes a wide and general view, discovering imperfection in mode or in material.

On the other hand, as he who is ignorant of a path may make the shortest route from point to point, so one who is not familiar with the erroneous conclusions of previous knowledge may first trace a true result. In such a case ignorance of error is an accidental vantage ground, which places its man considerably nearer truth than that occupied by prejudice based upon error.

I hold that such incredulity, whether of knowledge or of ignorance, is likely to indicate a philosophic mind. It proposes to think for itself. Its experience of the world has shown it that the world may be wrong. Its experience of its own abilities has taught it to respect itself. For example, Whitney was said to form his decisions, not after the model of common opinion, but by his own nicely balanced judgment. Perhaps in some details, humble though they be, such a mind has seen the defect of others' judgment, and has had cause to prefer its own results, and, thus instructed, turns to a new subject determined to win its own experience, to make its own investigation.