EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.-Drs. J. S. Richmond, A. B. Bisbee, C. A. Sperry. PRINTING COMMITTEE.-Drs. S. Putnam, D. G. Kemp, C. M. Chandler. LICENSE CENSORS.-Drs. D. F. Rugg, W. L. Hoisington, D. C. Hawley.

To American Medical Association.-L. C. Butler, S. J. Allen, William M. Huntington, H. F. Crain, J. Draper.

Maine.-S. Putnam, J. S. Richmond.

New Hampshire.-O. W. Daley, O. W. Sherwin.

Massachusetts.-E. F. Upham, W. L. Hoisington.

Rhode Island.-E. S. Albee.

Connecticut.-James Conland, D. P. Webster.

New York State Medical Association.-O. F. Fassett, M. R. Crain.
Northern New York Medical Association.—M. H. Eddy, L. M Bingham.
Connecticut River Valley Medical Society.-S. S. Clark, A. C. Sherwin.
Dartmouth Medical College.-O W. Sherwin, J. S. Richmond,

U. V. M.-L. M. Greene, C. S. Caverly.

White River Medical Association.-F. Blanchard, C. E. Chandler.
White Mountain Medical Association.-D. F. Rugg.

Semi-annual meeting to be held at Burlington.

An obituary notice of Dr. H. H. Whitcomb, prepared by A. L. McMillan, was read by secretary.

Dr. E. F. Upham, delegate to American Medical Association, made the following report:

Mr. President and Members of the Vermont Medical Society:

Being the only delegate to represent this Society at the last meeting of the American Medical Association, held in New Orleans, on the 27th, 28th, 29th and 30th of April last, and continuing through May 1st, it devolves on me to briefly report. which I do as follows: The number of delegates present was between seven and eight hundred, and all sections of the country were represented; but naturally, from the place of meeting, the attendance from the South and South-west was largely in excess of the representatives from the more distant States and Territories of the Union. The meeting was one of interest, and the sections, as a rule, carried out the programme advertised in the announcement of the meeting, and a very general interest was manifested from all sections in the advancement of medical science and practice, as well as a strong desire and determination to leave nothing undone to make the Society truly national in character, as well as the representative of the advanced thought in scientific medical attainments. I will not tax your patience with an attempt to report the doings and sayings of the different sections, as doubtless most, if not all, have had abler and more correct reports than it is possible for me to give, as they have been fully reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, published at Chicago. However, I cannot forbear brief mention of the interest manifested in the section on climatology and collective scientific investigation, as related to understanding the development of diseases in different localities. The section on Obstetrics and Gynecology also had an interesting and instructive discussion on the question: How long after the attendance on patients ill of Zymotic and contagious diseases, is it safe and the practitioner justified in attending a case of confinement; and what is the best means of disinfection while attending or after attendance on contagious diseases? By some, eight days was considered to be the shortest safe time, while others, apparently with as wide a field for observation, considered it safe to accouch a woman while in attendance upon erysipelas, puerperal fever, and other contagious diseases, with the observation of absolute personal cleanliness, with especial care that hands should be absolutely perfectly clean. And this seemed to be the opinion of the majority present who took part in the discussion. Dr. Sutton, of Pittsburg, Pa., made extended remarks, or rather presented a paper on Laparotomy, believing it a justifiable operation in many cases where tumors or ovarian disease could not be detected, and reported cases that had been attended with severe abdominal pain and debility where little or no abdominal enlargement could be detected. Where an abdominal section had been made, the hand passed in, and, although no firm intestinal or peritoneal adhesions could be detected, and neither uterine nor ovarian disease detected, his view was that slight adhesions were the cause of the suffering, and that the introduction of the hand and the necessary motion caused to the intestines by the examination, destroyed the adhesions and gave the relief. Dr. Daniels, of Austin, Texas, confirmed his views, and reported several cases that had been greatly relieved or cured by him by opening the abdomen, and simply passing his hand between the intestines and peritoneum. In the general sessions, the most exciting discussion of the meeting occurred on the motion to accept the report of a committee of eight appointed at the meeting in Washington, D. C., in 1884, to invite the International Medical Congress to meet in Washington in September, 1887; and, should the invitation be accepted, to make arrangements for its meeting. The invitation was given and accepted, and the committee then proceeded to make arrangements for its meeting, by adopting rules for its government and making nominations for the officers of the Congress; also dividing the work into proper sections, and appointing the officers for the Americans making up these sections. It was claimed that in filling the offices of sections the committee had ignored a large portion of the country, and largely made their selections from three cities,

viz.: New York, Philadelphia and Boston, to the prejudice of other cities and sections of the country equally entitled to representation. It was also claimed that the committee had filled some of the most important offices of the American portion of the Congress with men who were voluntarily in open antagonism with the profession of the United States, as represented by the American Medical Association. After an exciting but still gentlemanly discussion, it was decided to add to this committee appointed in 1884 one from each State and Territory of the United States, and one from each the army, navy, marine hospital service and District of Columbia, with power to alter, revise or amend the report of the original committee. And this committee, as enlarged, proceeded to organize by electing as Chairman or President, R. Beverly Cole, of San Francisco, Cal., and John V. Shoemaker, of Philadelphia, Secretary. This committee met in Chicago, June 24, and again in New York September 3, and have made their report, which is published in part, and will be completed when those elected to fill the council in the different sections are communicated with and signify their acceptance. Being the only one to represent Vermont, it was my fortune, or misfortune, per necessity, to act on this enlarged committee or allow Vermont to be unrepresented; and, knowing the disposition of this Society to forgive errors and accept well designed endeavors, chose the former, and end eavored to act as your representative in accordance with the expressed action of the Society and my honest convictions for the advancement of American medical science.

Most Respectfully Submitted,

E. F. UPHAM, Delegate.

He also remarked that the International Congress is not fully understood by the profession. Many think it an independent institution, and that it goes round at its pleasure. In 1884, at the meeting of the American Medical Association, it was thought advisable to invite the International Congress to hold its next meeting at Washington, and a committee of eight was appointed by the American Medical Association to attend the International Congress at Copenhagen, and extend the invitation to that body. This committee of eight received its powers from the American Medical Association, and accepted the trust. In their report at New Orleans, in May, 1885, the members of the Association were dissatisfied. They thought that the committee of eight had given all the places to a few men, and that others in important positions were ignored.

The Association added new members to that committee of eight, and revised their actions. The committee of eight then acted on the theory that there were two committees, while the Association claimed that there was only one, and the latter opinion was confirmed by counsel from Washington on parliamentary usages.

The enlarged committee held a meeting in Chicago on the 24th of last June. Before this committee met, doctors in New York and Philadelphia washed their hands of anything to do with the enlarged committee. Now, how could you make a man work at the 24th of June meeting when he had sent in his resignation before that time? The

New York men injected the code question, and are responsible for the trouble which now exists.

Dr. Henry Janes read a paper on " Ethics," which brought out a lively discussion. Dr. Richmond claimed that so long as we subscribe to a code, we should live up to it; that it has become notorious that some of the most prominent physicians in the State squarely and knowingly break the code they have deliberately subscribed to. often to the great injustice, injury and pecuniary loss of the younger practitioners. Let us live up to our code, or abolish it.

Dr. Crain thinks Homœopathists should be made to pull down their signs before we counsel with them; that we have no business to deal with them in any way.

Dr. Upham is very positive in his ideas on this question. It is easy enough to ridicule and make either side appear ridiculous on this floor. Dr. Janes wishes us to use the golden rule, and it is true that the nearer we do this, the higher we shall stand. In this matter we should ignore the individual, and consider that we are representatives of the medical profession, and that we should conscientiously contribute to its worth and advancement. We should not contribute more effort to form rules for ourselves than solid professional work for the benefit of humanity. Now is it advisable to have any code? That science knows no code is true, but we are associated together for a common object, and while we are practicing our profession with fidelity and zeal, the bread and butter question comes up sometimes all too prominently for our comfort. We must have the necessaries of life, and in procuring these selfishness and over-reaching and human traits creep in and produce discord in our ranks. Unprofessional usage is common, as we all know. The golden rule is ignored, and we feel that our professional brother needs restraint; therefore we are willing to be restrained. I believe that human society needs laws. It always has and always will. I know that there is a tendency to cut loose from all restraint, but I don't believe we are good enough yet to cut loose from all restraint. In emergencies, like obstetrics, surgery, etc., I meet anybody, but when the emergency ceases I arrange my business with reference to these cases. Our Society had better adopt a reasonable code, and then live up to it.

DR. CAMP: Dr. Upham says it is good for us to have law, but what is law good for if not obeyed? Another says Homœopathists have an exclusive dogma, and are therefore dishonest. Now my opinion is that those who suffer most from Homœopathists are the ones who scold most.

Dr. Somers believes in liberty. Don't believe dishonesty confined to Homœopathy more than to Regulars. Many Homœopathic remedies are really valuable, and you can buy them much cheaper of Homœopathic druggists. We are continually attacking Hahnemann, but not the Homœopathy of to-day. We repudiated spatting, but the spatters got our patients, and cured them, too, and we learned something. So of Homœopathy. If we would spend half the time in studying it that we do in ridiculing and scolding about it, I believe we should receive real benefit by the change. Take the simple matter of their dispensing their own medicines, while we write prescriptions, and tax the pocketbooks of our patrons. In this they beat us. They beat us again in the agreeableness of their remedies.

Dr. Jackson is glad this discussion has been brought out, and is further pleased that Dr. Janes don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope. It has been well said here that dishonesty is not confined to Homœopathy. Did you ever know of bread pills, carefully made, perhaps the best thing in the world for the patient, but is it honest practice? I wish to commend some Homœopathic remedies, such as the mother tincture of belladonna and aconite, the most reliable preparations to be found.

Is it necessary to have a code at all? Are our English or German brethren confined to a code? They get along well. I have never refused to consult with a gentleman. I have refused to consult with some Regulars, code men, too. If I find man who is a man, a gentleman, I meet him. There is a law of humanity that we must obey, in spite of all codes.

Dr. Crain says that nine-tenths of our patients would get well without any treatment. We give sweetened water, bread pills, anything and everything which science and the occasion may dictate, but we don't put up our sign and advertise that we give only bread pills.

DR. JACKSON: The clergyman said of Ingersoll, when he declared there was no good in religion, that for that very reason Ingersoll was not competent counsel.

DR. SOMERS: There has been more change in Homœopathy of late than in the Regular School. The tendency of both is to fuse, and in my opinion they will within a few years. If we counsel with them, we can manage them. Now our opposition sustains them, and is the main thing that makes them flourish.

Dr. C. M. Chandler said for the first 5 years of his practice he saw nothing of Homœopathists. For the last 25 years he cannot get rid of