to a particular school shall be examined or approved by the members on the board representing that school. In reality the result is as favorable as would be the action of these separate boards. It is a funny incident, though not so very surprising perhaps, that when the question of abolishing the board was under discussion before the judiciary committee of the House, the one Eclectic member who had always before opposed the creation of boards and the exercise of a political censorship, and the single Homœopathic member, representing a school in the State that has always opposed boards strenuously, each gentleman in turn declared the board plan to be the and practical success have not been guaranteed by the license of any such examiners, and that the greatest inventions and improvements in the art of healing have sometimes come from persons without such endorsement and occasionally from those having no professional titles or special medical training. In other words I am opposed to a medical caste, or aristocracy in imitation of that of the old world, in this free country. THE PRESENT SITUATION IN ALABAMA. BY GEORGE G. LYON, M. D., MOBILE, ALA. proper one and that it was working well HAVING visited Montgomery on two and should be continued! In fact, at the committee hearing, the members of the board and their particular friends had a regular love feast, and the extreme harmony was broken only by the speech of the present writer. Before both committees I took the position that, if the board system was to be continued there should be at least three Homoeopaths and three Eclectics in position with six Allopaths, seven members being required for a quorum. I am pleased to say that the workings of the Tennessee board bave been impartial and fair, so far as I am informed, toward all schools and all appli cants. The gentlemen composing it are upright and honorable men, as far from abusing their trust, probably, as any others who might occupy their places. My objections are not personal, but against the idea of assumed standards and a catechetical examination instituted to determine who shall be allowed to bring relief to the sick My observation has shown me that skill occasions during the meeting of the General Assembly to look after the interests of our school, and do everything possible to defeat the Allopathic Medical law, let me report results. The last time I was there, was on January 21st, when I met Dr. Dake of Nashville, and Dr. Ballard of Birmingham. We appeared before the Judiciary Committee, and although the chairman and majority of the Committee was opposed to us they listened with interest to Dr. Dake's able arguments for fair play. There were twelve or fifteen Allopaths present, but Dr. Cochrane their censor was the spokesman of the crowd. He talked about one hour and from his speech showed that he was uneasy about his pet law. He said that we ought to join his Society and let the law stand, that they would take us in if we would only drop our names "Homœopath, Eclectic, &c." Mr. Quarles asked him why he was afraid of a name and he replied that it was against their code of ethics for a physician to advertise, and that they considered it advertising for a Doctor to call himself an Allopath, Homœopath, or Eclectic. He also said that we had as good Medical Colleges as they had, and gave us all manner of blarney. The old fellow was very anxious for us to come forward and join their ranks. Well, we declined unless we could get fair play and of course we could not expect that. After the meeting of the Judiciary Committee friend Mr. Quarles fought my nobly for our cause, fought almost single handed, as we had but two or three friends in the General Assembly when it first met. The final vote showed how faithfully Mr. Quarles worked, 44 to 46. We unfortunately had the 44, but this, is the first we have ever done and it has shown the other side what a hand-full of men can do against a host when they are backed by right and justice. You remember in my paper read before the Southern Society I stated as one reason for refusing to be examined that the "certificate of qualifications" did not bestow upon a Homœopath the same professional privileges it gave the Allopaths. It was not recognized by the very boards who issued it, for that reason I did not want it. I circulated a number of copies of your journal containing my article among the members of the General Assembly, and I believe it had some weight, and now the Allopathic Societies are endeavoring to remove that objection to their law by allowing us that recognition. We shall win when the next General Assembly meets, and they feel it and are now taking steps to cool us down and stop the fight. The following clippings speak for themselves. Heretofore we have been treated as unclean, not worth speaking to, but now are to be consulted with, and when we have never asked for such a privilege. Here are the clippings: Montgomery Advertiser, March 23d, 1891. THE OLD SCHOOL PHYSICIANS. Mobile Register, March 28,'91. DWELLING IN UNITY. HOMOEOPATHS ALLOWED INTO THE SOCIETIES OF THE ALLOPATHS. For some time an internal struggle has been going on in the Allopathic Medical Societies on the question whether Homoeopathic physicians should be allowed to sit in the Societies and be consulted with or consulted The by the Allopaths. Medical Society of Jefferson County took a stand in the affirmative Tuesday night, says the Age-Herald. At a regular meeting of the resolution Society, a was passed, instructing the delegates to the State Association to vote to repeal rule five of the "book of rules," page 222. The repeal of this rule will allow the Homœopathic physicians to enter the Societies of the Allopaths and consult with them. The State Association will meet at Huntsville on the 14th oí April, and some think that it will pass while other physicians doubt it. The law that passed, the General Assembly is as follows: "Sec 4078 (4244). Practicing medicine or surgery without certificate of qualification, fine. Any person practising medicine or surgery in this State without having first obtained a certificate of qualification from one of the authorized boards of medical examiners of this State shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars. Provided that this act shall not apply to any doctors or physicians now practicing medicine in Alabama who are graduates of a reputable Medical College and have complied with the laws by having their diplomas recorded by the judge of probate in the County in which they may be practicing medicine, and this act shall not apply to any physician who has practiced medicine in this State for the past five years." Now the question is, shall we accept membership in their Societies and consult with them and abandon the fight and allow the so called regulars to keep entire control of the examining boards? My attorneys think the above law unconstitutional. Shall we submit to it and stop the fight? If we do, we will have no more Homeopaths in our State, as others will be black-balled who apply for certificates of qualification. I would like to hear from some of the older heads of our profession on this subject, as I feel that we are placed in a critical position. Shall we abandon our own Societies and join theirs and permit them to hold entire authority in the licensing of physicians in this State, or shall we persist until we have obtained our rights in full? tion 4. Be it further enacted that immediately upon the passage of this act the Governor shall appoint six graduated physicians, two from each grand division of the State as a State Board of Medical Examiners, whose duty it shall be to examine into the qualifications of all applicants to practice medicine or surgery in accordance with foregoing sections of this act. Provided that the three Schools of Medicine, viz: Allopathic, Homeopathic and Eclectic shall be represented on said board of examiners. Not less than five shall constitute a quorum and a majority of those present shall be necessary to reject any application. Provided that the members of the Board representing each school of medicine shall have the right to examine all applicants of that school, and the Board shall issue the certificate of qualification to applicants who are recommended by THE TENNESSEE MEDICAL LAW. the members of the board who belong to BY W. L. MC CREARY, M. D., KNOXVILLE, TENN. IN an editorial in the February number of the JOURNAL Page 451, a mistake is made about our Medical Law and Tennessee is done an injustice. Any one holding a diploma from any reputable Medical College, is granted a license to practice in this State on presentation of his diploma to any member of the State board, without any examination. Any one wishing to practice here without a diploma must pass an examination before the Board. But the Homœopathic member has the right to examine and recommend members of his own school, and the Board on his recommendation is said school after such examination." This refers only to non-graduates, and a Homœopathic applicant has an equal chance with an Allopathic applicant, as the Homœopathic member of the board has power of recommendation equal to a majority of the Allopathic members. And I will further state that no one who knows enough to practice medicine need fear to meet the State Board of Tennes see. MEDICAL REGULATION BY LAW. BY J. P. DAKE, M. D., NASHVILLE, TENN. To the Honorable, the Members of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF TENNESSEE: obliged to grant a license as provided by AS a citizen of the State of Tennessee, Section 4, which reads as follows: "Sec and as a member of the medical pro fession, I desire to call your attention to facts in relation to what is proposed, now and heretofore, in the form of statutory enactments for the regulation of the practice of medicine. For twenty years during each session of the General Assembly, bills have been introduced and urged for the creation of boards of medical examiners, clothed with power to determine who shall minister to the sick and the injured among the people. Till last session all such bills were consigned to the waste basket, as proposing needless and meddlesome legislation. The one creating the present board, upon urgent personal appeals from a few medical men, was adopted by the smallest possible majority. The question of its continuance is now before you. 1. The first point to which I would call your attention is the fact that the fathers of the medical profession in America, the founders of the first medical school, such men as Dr. Benjamin Rush, were especially careful not to have the old world methods of governmental censorship introduced here. Dr. Rush, in an introductory lecture delivered at the University of Pennsylvania, in the autumn of 1782, speaking of the obstacles to progress in the art of healing, mentioned as one of the chief: "The interference of governments in prohibiting the use of certain remedies and in enforcing the use of others by law." And as another: "The conferring of exclusive privileges upon bodies of physicians, and forbidding others of equal talents and knowledge, under severe penalties from practicing medicine within certain districts of cities and countries." As the Republic was from the people and for the people, it was ordained that each individual should have entire freedom in choosing his way to heaven, health and domestic happiness. 2. But, unfortunately, the fathers of the Republic had not been long in their graves when a spirit of pride and selfishness, in the guise of protection for the people, led to the adoption of a censorship, the assumption of standards in medicine, and the attempted repression of individual freedom in the art of healing. Several of the States, especially those having medical colleges, secured prohibitory laws, limiting the practice of medicine to such physicians as secured medical diplomas. It was not long until the power conferred upon the censors was employed to prevent innovations and changes in the treatment of the sick. Cases were in court, and fines and imprisonments were imposed upon the leaders of reform, till the people came to understand that the statutes regulating medical practice were not to benefit the sick, but for the support of a medical orthodoxy and a practical monopoly for certain classes of physicians. In one State after another the medical laws were repealed or rendered obsolete. 3. Thus things remained until the great civil war brought boards and red-tape in abundance. The machinery suited to the exigencies of war, giving place and power to a few to lord it over the many, setting aside individual freedom and choice and running everything in fixed grooves, had become so pleasing to army and navy surgeons they were loth to give it up and come down to the common level in civil life. Through their instrumentality, in medical societies and journals, the agita tion in favor of medical examining boards was kept up till resolutions were adopted and committees appointed to influence legislation and procure a censorship like that common to the old countries, which are dominated by great standing armies, and where individual freedom is comparatively unknown. Legislatures have listened to the plausible plea in favor of "medical education," "elevating the medical standard," and "protecting the dear people" and have enacted laws unbecoming a republic, and that must be repugnant to every right-thinking democratic mind. 4. The people have not asked for special laws to govern the healers of the sick. They prefer to judge and choose among physicians for themselves. All they ask of the State is to compel practitioners to be duly registered, so as to show what each has done to qualify himself or herself for the care of the sick. 5. Busy medical men, successful and appreciated in their fields, are not the movers for examining boards. They ask for no protection against the competition of ignoramuses and quacks. They are satisfied with the oportunities offered by medical colleges, with the freedom for the acquisition and use of medical knowledge, and with the judgments formed and acted on by the people among whom they practice. They have no use for repressive measures, but favor the freedom that encourages invention and originality and independence on the part of the healer. Here is the language of one of the brightest and ablest medical teachers and writers Tennessee has ever had, the late Professor Wm. K. Bowling, M. D., LL. D., who said in his Nashville Journal of Medicine and Surgery: "Every few years some one gets up a bill in the Legislature to 'protect' competent medical practitioners by fining incompetent ones, and forcing them out of the field. This is to be accomplished by the exclusion of those who have no diplomas, or by examining boards to ascertain the qualifications of those who would practice medicine irrespective of diploma holding." Speaking of the laity, the people, he said: "Do they not know who does them most good when sick, and who lucks best ?" "Qualifications? Bah! Pretty is that pretty does! This is the logic of the masses, and the king of our country is the aggregate of the masses *** Every medicine man we have seen and conversed with upon the subject is dead set against the pollution that law can bring to medicine. The language of each is, if I cannot stand without props let me fall'and this is the language of common sense." 6. The opposition to medical boards has not been confined to ignorant men in the profession or among the people. It has come from those who regard the plan as wrong in principle and pernicious in prac tice. The distinguished Professor Huxley, of England, in an address at the opening of the medical school in the London hospital, said: "A large number of persons seem to be of the opinion that the State is bound to take care of the general public, and see that it is protected against incompetent persons and quacks. I do not take that view. I think it much more wholesome for the public to take care of itself in this |