womb;" said she had been treated heroically, worn rubber rings and other pessaries till she was disgusted with herself, and had lost faith in doctors. Examination confirmed her diagnosis. My treatment was supporting the organ with a soft sponge, placed in position by patient before arising in the morning and removing at bedtime, the sponge moistened with Calendula and Glycerine before using, and thoroughly cleaned and aired after removal. As a remedy, I gave Sepia, 30x, two powders per day. In six weeks patient considered herself well and left the city. In this case I prescribed for both disease and the symptoms, as they appeared to me, upon my experience and observation of similar cases.

In conclusion, I claim that Clinical Medicine is one of the important branches of our profession and can not be circumscribed by any one law or course of reasoning; but each physician must be governed by his own experience, coupled with his observation, as the disease and symptoms, with their various forms in different individuals, climate and localities present.

2. How should we deal with patients troubled with thread-worms?

3. Given a case of gall-stone colic, with obstruction of the duct, and great pain and disturbance, what is the proper course to pursue? 4. In a case of renal colic, with gravel in the ureter and great agony, what should be done?

5. Suppose a pregnant woman with urine loaded with albumen has bad symptoms and goes into convulsions, what is demanded?

6. In diagnosed intussusception of the intestine, what can be done?

2. How should we deal with a patient troubled with thread worms?

The general concensus of opinion with regard to this question was similar to that of No. 1, i. e., that a remedy should be selected according to the general condition of the patient.

3. Given a case of gall-stone colic, with obstruction of the duct, and great pain and disturbance, what is the proper course to pursue?

Dr. French gives Belladonna and stops the use of coffee; after the colic is relieved, he exhibits China, once or twice daily for several weeks.

Dr. Monroe is of opinion that Magnesia phos. should afford relief in these cases, as it has been found valuable in spasm of the involuntary muscles.

Dr. Duffield recited a case in which Magnesia phos. gave immediate relief, whereas previous attacks had been long and tedious. He has also seen 200 calculi passed from a patient under China eight years since, with no return up to date.

Dr. Henry recommended Nux vomica, Podophyllum, China and Guiacum as being remedies most frequently indicated, using sweet oil as an adjuvant.

Dr. Meadows advocated the injection of hot water. He was of opinion that

we should take active measures to give immediate relief from pain.

Dr. J. P. Dake.-We should first make a clear diagnosis. There may be other troubles simulating the effects of gallstones, as inspissated bile or inflammation of the duct. He believes there are remedies which have control of spasm of the muscular fibres; but when we are sure of the presence of a gall-stone, it is the duty of a physician to use immediate measures to pass the stone. He approves also

of Dr. Thayer's treatment, i. e., beginning with China low and gradually using higher dilutions, treatment extending over a period of several months; and is of opinion that success in this treatment is due to the thickening of the mucous membrane lining the duct. He has also seen uriticaria in patients suffering from gall stones-another symptom of China.

Dr. Fellows has always used sweet oil to soften the stone, and it will then pass with ease.

Dr. Richardson.-The main idea is that our first mission as physicians is to relieve suffering. How? It is a meclianical condition as much as a bullet pressing on a nerve. He knows of no remedy which will diminish the size of gallstones, though some will relieve the swelling of the duct. He always administers sweet oil, which, he thinks, lubricates the passage. Possibly the free use of lemon juice may act as a solvent. Finally, it may be necessary to resort to a laparotomy.

Dr. Le Fevre has recently treated a case of biliary (?) colic, which recurred periodically during attacks of hay fever. The history developed the fact that the hay fever was better during the attacks of colic. Dioscorea 30, gave immediate

relief.

Dr. Higbee had for a long time used Morphia when other measures failed.

For the past twelve years he has successfully used the Faradic current; + pole over the spine, pole over gall duct, and has always been able to give relief.

4. In a case of renal colic, with gravel in the ureter, and great agony, what should be done?

Dr. French would give Belladonna in the acute pain, and Magnesia phos. as a solvent of stones and curative of the condition producing them. Otherwise the same treatment as in gall stone colic would apply.

5 Suppose a pregnant woman, with urine loaded with albumen, has dangerous symptoms and goes into convulsions, what is demanded?

Dr. French would give Gelsemium, but deliver as soon as possible.

Dr. Henry recommends Stramonium when the os is not dilatable; may use the tincture.

The general opinion of members favored immediate delivery by instruments. 6. In diagnosed intussusception of the intestine, what can be done?

Dr. Parsons' treatment should depend on the location. If in the sigmoid flexure large injections per rectum may relieve. If higher, we will have much difficulty to relieve in this manner. In his opinion we should, in such cases, resort to laparotomy as soon as possible.

Dr. Richardson recommends injections of Soda Bicarb., followed by Tartaric Acid. This gives rise to a large quantity of gas which may distend the intestines sufficiently to reduce the intussusception. If this fails we must resort to laparotomy.

Dr. John E. James would call atten- . tion to the necessity of first staying the peristalsis of the bowels, which 1⁄44 gr. of Morphia will do, and then use our gas or water injections. By following this plan we will probably avoid a laparotomy. He having never found need of surgical in

terference if this line of treatment had been followed.

Dr. Bailey has used a long rectal tube to flush the bowels with hot water, using a return tube. This will relax the intestines and relieve the pain. He then He then pours over the abdomen a large quantity of Ether, and has frequently felt the invagination to be suddenly relieved. Follow with Arnica and Bryonia to relieve the soreness and prevent return.

Dr. Orme, in conclusion: We must decide: Are we able to promptly relieve by Homœopathic medicines, or if not, shall we revert to measures of relief? It is part of our duty as physicians to control pain, which will at times produce a condition of the nervous system which may never be recovered from; and our proper course is to relieve such pain within a reasonable time by any measures at our command, palliating when we must curing when we can.

THE THREE MISTAKES.

BY A. R. MORGAN, M. D., NEW YORK.

IN THE "ten minutes'" paper which

I am invited to contribute we can take only a "snap shot" view of the three admonitions of Hahnemann, viz:

1. In supposing the dose too small. 2. Improper use of the remedy. 3. In not permitting the remedy to act a sufficient length of time.

The first count involves the whole question of dose.

The fulminations of the old school have from the first been directed more at "the heresy" of the infinitesimal dose than at our law of similars; for the idea that diseases were sometimes cured by drugs which caused similar diseases is as old as the counter statement that dis

eases are cured by contraries, both views being expressed with equal emphasis in the writings attributed to Hippocrates, the father of medical literature, but the infinitessimal dose was an innovation, due entirely to Hahnemann, and therefore must not be tolerated.

Hahnemann gathered together the scattered observations of physicians prior to his time, reduced them to order, and announced to the world the prevalence of an universal law of cure, while our opponents, up to the present day, remain floundering in the tempestuous sea of empiricism, without compass or chart to guide them.

Hahnemann began his experiments under the law of similars by using the traditional doses, but found harm instead of relief following their use and therefore set about reducing the size of his doses until, to his amazement, he discovered potentization, an entirely new and unexpected culmination in the domain of therapeutics; a discovery thenceforth inseparable from advanced, intelligent Homœopathy; a discovery which has conferred imperishable renown upon his

name.

By potentization we mean that process by which inert substances, like quartz, oyster shells, charcoal, common salt, the metals, etc., etc., are invested with heretofore unknown medicinal properties, which could be made useful in treating

the sick.

Potentization did not spring from any preconceived notion or favorite theory, but was the legitimate fruit of prolonged study and careful observation and has been fully corroborated by his faithful followers, the world over.

Hahnemann's admonition to "seek the minimum dose," is straightforward and unequivocal, and upon it depends

He repeatedly states, "when the exact similii means has been found, the dose can scarcely be reduced too much."

As a matter of fact as his study and experience enlarged he ascended higher and higher in the scale of potencies, and so with nearly every faithful follower of the three fundamental rules laid down in Organon :

The law of similars. The single remedy. The minimum dose.

The pride of our Homœopathic faith.. Just exactly what constitutes the minimum dose is yet an unsettled question among practitioners; and it is doubtful whether we shall ever arrive at any fixed and undeviating mathematical standard.

One feature, however, is apparent he who individualizes most closely, he who strives to adapt most accurately the pathogenetic symptoms of the drug to the pathognomonic condition of the sick, is inclined to prefer the potentized drug, and the lower the generalization, the lower the potency.

It is a question rather of varying dynamic qualities than of crude quantities.

The dynamic quality of the dose should be adapted to the varying dynamic disturbances of the life force.

No scientific research has nor ever can penetrate to the world of causes. All we know, or can know, of original causesdynamic forces-is gathered from our observations of effects.

It is a significant fact that objections to the use of dynamized drugs is wholly theoretical.

These objections have no place in the minds of practical observers, men of learning and ability, who, in strict conformity with "the rules," have faithfully

Our opponents of the chemico-physiological (and I may safely add germicide) school of medicine, who at first treated our doctrines with derision and contempt, have, by the inexorable logic of better curative results obtained under Homœopathic treatment, been compelled to fall into line and adopt comparatively. diminished doses; doses about equivalent to those used by the exclusively "low dilutionists' in our own ranks; doses employed by Hahnemann before he had reached the culminating plane of genuine Homœopathic therapeutics; doses often used by beginners before they have learned the "high art" of thorough individualization; for we find to-day the Allopathic pharmaceutist and the wholesale druggist advertising his wares reduced to the 100th, 500th. 5,000th, and 10,000th of a grain, and their physicians using them, too.

Thus is the old school gradually emerging from the Jewish dispensation of medicine, which demands "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," which cruelly punishes the human form divine, with little or no conception of the milder, more gentle and salutary influences of the new dispensation.

The second count, improper use of the remedy, includes:

1. The use of crude preparations, and too large doses.

2. Lack of Homoeopathicity.
3. Alternation.

We need not stop to discuss the first clause: no one of you will dispute it.

The second is almost equally plain.

The selected remedy must be similar, if possible, to both objective conditions and subjective symptoms, but it should. constantly be borne in mind that characteristic subjective phenomena takes pre

cedence in its suggestive importance over pathological conditions. Had I the time, I might cite many instructive cases in proof of the above statement, but every close prescriber will corroborate it.

There can be no sound nor logical defense for the pernicious habit of alternation, not that the sick may not be sometimes cured by medicines given in alternation, for we know, by personal expeience, that they are sometimes so cured. The writer, before he learned a better way, not only used medicines in alternation, habitually, but also the low potencies as a rule.

Some of the apologists for alternation strive to inculpate Hahnemann, and quote him wrongfully in defense of that weak habit. It is true, in the beginning of his experience, before the new science had fairly crystallized in his mind, some expression may be gleaned from his writings which apparently sanction that habit, but we find such notions expunged in the later revised editions of his works. If there is any one collateral feature upon which Hahnemann is more pronounced than another, it is upon the use of the single remedy.

We quote one of many expressions in that direction.

He says, in the fifth and last edition of The Organon (Sec. 258): "The physician should never lose sight of the great truth, that of all known remedies, there is but one that merits a preference before all others, viz.: that whose symptoms bear the closest resemblance to the totality of those which characterize the malady." (See also (See also The Organon, Secs. 272-3, and many others.)

It is impossible to know what effects. two different drugs will produce upon the body until we prove them in alternation. Without such provings we have no reliable data to guide us.

Our entire system of pathogenesis is built up on provings of single remedies. We may honestly differ as to precisely what constitutes the minimum dose adaptable to any given case of sickness, but the subject of alternation is not an open question, nor can it be a scientific one until we have alternate provings upon the healthy.

The fact appears when you come to analyze the motives for alternation, that it arises either from imperfect knowledge. of the provings, or from indolence upon the part of the practitioner; in short, alternation is a convenient refuge for the ignorant and indolent.

The third mistake against which we are cautioned is the too hasty repetition of the dose.

"To do or not to do." That is the question which requires great judgment and "nerve."

Hahnemann dwells with great emphasis upon the importance of permitting the first dose to act as long as improvement continues, and he insists upon it, that he who observes this rule with the greatest care will be the most successful practitioner."

In the treatment of acute diseases, he tells us that here "medical impressions are comparatively transient and of shorter duration than in chronic diseases,” and he gives us the sanction of his vast experience and high authority for more frequent repetition of doses, even to every five minutes, when necessary, in desperate cases; but in all cases, he admonishes us to be cautious about repetitions until the previous dose has ceased to act. In The Organon, Sec. 248, he says: "The dose of the same medicine should not be repeated until a cure is effected or until it ceases any longer to afford relief."

In chronic cases, the properly selected