A57617 2 U ft -C._f A N - Na . I im. I I.1 ýA ý 1-1.1 I I "I.. -ý - 1 - -1 - ý _ 0 _..., W _ _44 1, - I r,ýa,,g- I" -..ý liýý.....- ly_ ý 5ý 1. ý. _. I 11 ý. I, ýý_ ý 7" I. - ý -. fte - " I - I -., ý _;e. ý -, c ý R Q)el. a - ýý I _4 1, -. I 1. ýý ýT I. i -,ý' &,4 ^,- eý,, 1ý111ýý. _,4 '' -,.ý, I I tlý,rlttul -, 11.,, t;Lýltveý_-_4ý, - I ý ý.., u oýp -,4.* -, I ý _ý,'ý '17 " I I ý"ý ý., r-CM ý'll - p.1, fllý_ 'r ____ I I.,.;Z_,; _,. -lil 1, fýl ý ý_14 -1 *.R'll ý 'ý' ýtKit,.,ý11'_- _ 11 ýý.., -, *ýý,ýý.1ý1ý_ýýt;_c ý,..'., "I'll, -1, - - - --,ýýz ý___. I - I. - ý -1 I I - -.,ý_ _` ý ý - - I - ý04zýl'.. I. ý.. ý - -ý ý `ý,, e&, ý', ýW '4ý7 I 11 ý;i __ - ý ý Y__'ýý ý ýl ý __ _1ý1 --,. I.. - - __ - - ___ý Mmý 11-m- W111 " - ý Iý _ ____ - - ý,_ - ',ý _--, -:_ý-_ 'I- - ýl _ý,ý _l - 11 ý..... IA41!.,,zý-ý','. 'ý __,ý,ý,Tý -,i.-A"', 4,5ý.V --.ý ý, r,tl, ý& I., I _jýe -, ý eý_7;ý z ýý -ý;ý:.l, ý,,--I.- ý', e- ýý ýý I - I,l,ýý,-4,ý_t.t.,X-6 1, _ý 0 e, _,ýý -.ýý:;ýý,ý - 41 ý--,ýý,Aý;ý,,ý,,", -.,, ". - ___ _ý ýf, ý,ý;,..,, ý,.. - ý I,.ý 'ý; "' - 9S.,, _ý. " _ý.:---v',,, -, - 7n, ",ý ý,,ý,- r,; - ý _1 tz:71ý- -, - _ ý, - - A.ý, 7 - I 1; - _ýý,, ý ý,:ý 1, -,- -, --%,7,4f__ M.,.- ý I, ý-,c - - ý ý*l - -. " -, - 11.4 "I'll,;,e, -T ý -,,ý,e _*!,ý, ý1ýi ýr.N-ý -* -iLý I,:-ýý '. -..,ý". _,,,-ý_.r, ýý -:1. " ýý _., __ ý ý - 2, - - - -. ý I- E? ý - I,, - - -., Fý ý__ý;,ý"` 1cf, _",-_ý_, A _ý*__ll 11 -,ýý -1 I,, ý', -,, - 1.! ý, -;-'- j,ý_, -- ý., ýý,:,_, ý, - - - -- ý.,- ý,:7ý -,ý, -,ý_,- -,ý - -.,, -,-, ý,ýý-, - ý. --:-ý '. ý-_ e. _.ýý -,ý -,:t. 'ý'-. -,.!--ýýZ,74#--tý ný!.-ý,;ýý -Fýý-V,j -.,,, -, ý -.,J-, _. H 1,711!, _'ý_11'1, - ý ý,- - ý,ýZ_5;4.iý " I _-, -.., -; ý ý., - __,:ýý -. 1 -.Z:ý-4'-,:-ý;,;.`ýt."... 1". ý 11., ýý""ý, 17ý " `ý4e, '_ ",'ý "., ", f.77, ý,ý - ý,5e,,:ý74_Ti_'l _A;_T _4W!,t_,'-ý.F ýý-_-_'$':ý,ý,;: ý -,,-,,, ý,,, - -, - 1. -. I 9,,,, - ýý..; 1-7- - - _- ý 'z"l l, 'ý-.!". ý5,-,. ýý; -ý: - _,; T_ýrl!;ýC7,-;ý;"-r,'ýý,' ý ýý-ý--` --ý,,- - -, - - ",. ý,,., I, -, " - I,, I llý,týA - ý,,, ý-, ".. - - 1. _. -, -,, -.,., ý -:,ý- + f, 11, ý - -,ýý - I ký." - ir ýý', -'V_.,l.- ý. ý " ýý, ý e.,7 ýý,_', '; - ý ýw., I fýl:ý I -ýwe` t'll.,,. __ - - " ': ý -, I,,,, - 4-, ýý4 ".ý _.ý,ý I I ý, ý - ý? I,., - 11,-, I - 11:. 1_ý'. I 1ý:_41 _ý ýý.., ýj - -, -ý,,,,ýL I -,,ý, " -,;ý,- -, ýjl; ";, ý - 1, 11 't ý ý ý_,, _4ýý,`,7.ý__:týýCl ýi_'-,_ I ý - I.,.Zý ý, - le`,ý ý* -, _, -,,:ý I-.. - ýýWý!:"! --.ýt - ý!., z, - " -,, -':ý " ý;--, '- 'e, -,,---' ý - 'ý,, - - - ",., "e i,-:l " '.-ý",.;ý.; " - _,;,, -, --,--',ýý,z.::ý!'ý " -ý, ý 7-9 ": _1ýlr ý,` ýa 7., ýý " I,, ieý I.1'z ", -,ýý', - - - - ý -, - ýý,;,ý-ý,7- -,,ý-,', -,;4-, _., ý:,ý,-;e;-.,;ýý '.ý-,.,.,-..z K_ I ý, ".Cý-, ý -, - - I t,ý4""'-,ý I ý,ý -, t 0 ý 4-,;,ýý, -,:!ý.,-` - -, ý ýý -.11 1_ý ]ý.; iý.. ýý,- ý,ýý, ý,V- ý-ýr.ý._,-;41 - ý,./ I, I. -, ý1 _ - -, 1_,ý,vr., ý-,r, )Wtý',ý,ý' - 'ý -,', ý ýýF. ý -,ý,,. ýl,,"Ill.t -. I -,r,",,,, - - -Fjlq;ýý 'ý-ýý,ý_ I ý:;lt- _Wý. J;ý_iý ýe -T,. I I I ý". ýf.ýýO,,IV, I,. ý;ýý?r-':ý _ý __ ýl.. I!,, _ý. - _ ýý,-,ý, - --ýl --t ý 1 -_ - - - -- 'el _,_ý' "' - I 1. -; ý _' " T:ý.,oý, ý ý - ýýV ` t-ý - 1, -,'ý - -,,I-, I - ý 1ý _1 7-_ý,' -.-ý,-,-`, 1,, ý I;z i'ý I ý I" -, ý ý I, -, _ - ý,.,;144., 41.ýýI;ýZ-ýM --,--L-"-?-ý- ý " ýý i:l' iý,4ý. 3ý ý, ý ý'll -Ylr ý_ I 'ý_-l, -(__ 1ý:_ý ýý!", _-ý', - i.; '.,ýLý', ý7 ý.." ý 1, ý', -., F, -, - -,4 ýl,,,'-. ý 'ýl I -, ý - -,. ý.,ý " ý. ýý - ý I, r _ _ - _ _ ýC-.- -,; - -, -1,ý' 5 1!ý.:,, ýý ý-,ý- leý,.., ýý- -, I, - $ 1,1:1,4. ",--- -_ý. ý " - ý -." ý- ":_ ", *, -;,ýý,, I-_,.ý,l v ýl - I ý_-_,'. ý, ý1ý ý,, ý$- 1 1_-, - ý,,ý --r,..51,.4;!4.ý,,,,, "' ý-ý-`ý,,';ý ý,`, " ýý,;q, *I 11 ý ý - _ 11 I- - "--. - __ý -.. - 11. ý,., _ý - ý-,,.. ý 411 1_ý - " 1, - -1-e.,-ý ý ý -,, -!F,;","-- 's,, ".,;ý ", -t3:`,ýý,.. z- - I!!-,: -,., ý - I. ý, I -;, -- " - " - ý,,tý, ý., - ý ýý'.ý, _, -, - I I - - - - -, -,..,. -,I, 4* ý, _,,4, ýý,_, ý_ I -.,q-,- -` ý.ý- -:ý; -.e., `ý,ý?i,;,ýý.",_-,%-, -, ý -"--, - '.'-*;, *, -_ý,::;-,--,. ý. ý, - - ý I ý -ý-ý..,--._,;-'- eeý_ __ O. ý,.". -,-, ý,- -&- _ý F, '' - -.,,,, ý ý 11 _,ý ý '..:ý,, t -ý- --Vz -,ýý-:,l ý', ý_;11ý111'ý,_. - - ý, 1ý,,, - " ý ý,._..ý, _, ý, ý. ý ý, ý,Zlw,. -j;ý! ýý'ý -_ý,, - I. ý. -,ýll fý_ - ý _- - I 1, ýý,. I -,. --ý)ý..11.19 I'ýý--,."ý--:ý,ý.-,ýý',ir',---:ý::, -, I, I I. ". & ý,,, -.",-. -.;ýý--ýýe,ý,-_ý.t,.:ý - - -. -1 1-1-... -4-ý. 1. "; ý,, - I ý,ý)ý, ýý, ý ",,ý,,,ý ý, *, -, St.,ý__..ý I.:-1_Vl__1111T7.,7.-et,-ý- -.,- - -, -, 1, 4ýý-,:,ý-, -,ýý._ - _ *',,ý - -,, ýw leý ý, -, '. I, 1ý'ý 1'ý_:`, 11 1,, " I -.ý --- -. -.. ýý: "'7',, "- ", " ý ýý 1. ý "I ý - -.,-. _.", ý -,..,, 1?,ý,,, I "', AfY,, "T týý',,,ýl - OV,t--,ýý.,,_ -.,,, ý4e` 'ý-ý,' Z-,;ý.XZLý7. I, ý -,,ý_ ý; - - __,-:- ý I -C -,. ý-ý " I, - ý,,,, ý - po ý ý. I e "', _., 11 ý I.., _,_,iý,!ý,t,4,eet;, 4- ---ý";ý--;ý-,;_,;ý 1, - I % -I- '.,,ý, ýý -ý'-:_ ý;ýLel'_ -1.1 "I ýl I - ý, ". ý ",- ý - I,. - -ilý " - I k,,ý_ý ý 1: 11 _. ý - I. -, --.4 " " - -, ý, " I - 7 -_ - ý, _ -.'!, ý:k. -. -es,ý e, ý- 4. - - '. ý - - ý. I, ", 11 -ý Ir -,i.1'.,,;ee': ".., -'., - ýý _ll I,,_.ý:k, ", _ 1, Xv l; _ ý, -, ""':e`ý,'- - _ý iýl pý,,, _ý, __ ý 4e -,,,.,,.1.ý, -, ý I, k Itt, -ý ýýt. gý_ý --ý ý ý ý - --, ý ýW, I,- _- - I, ý,,_, -,, __, `ý_ ý.l,- " _,, - -. -e,,% - - y::,,ý, - ý I.,ý ý,- - 7ý',;, `:ý, ", iýý I- 4,__ I I ý, -A""_?---7r7-Aý,t-,t,:'ýýr^,'.ý'týe.: e, ý_..ý_, I... N i,.,i.ýee,ý, - v - "" I, ý, -, ",--l"', - _'ý, _ý'-ý ý -,ý.g I _,-ý -,ýl:- -,ýý I. ý_ '17ý1,ý`eýW %,;ý,ý ý - ý _ýý:,ýý-:V-ýý;ýý. ''ý-,_'.1" ý,. "I I i'ý,., ýl e.,,.:, I.. -,_ ý,,!-%'k ý,.:4, ý _,Zý, -, I-,, ",.- 1ý1'ý I t.. ". ý __, ýZý., -;,,ý-.ý ý-_ ý.,,_-;ýý"ý -.`;.,... ýý " ýý, - -. 1-1 -ý`Aý -,,,iý ý, - - ý,,_-ýý.i--ý-ý,liý:ýý-_ -., >112_ez!ýL ý -`ý_.--;-, -, ý -,, I ý ý- - _ ýý,- - -,- - ýý, I,_ý.`,. -,-ýý --ý '_,.- 'ý - e ý - - -,, ýU.* I ý,,;. I., ". __ 1ý ý,ý,__; -,: Iz, ýý- _. --.. " -,,,.;, -:,ý ilý,, ý I I - ý,ý'ý I I - ý, 'ýýL:;.-_ -:ý'll ":`_lý,;*,.'-:,-_ý,_: -7ýý:.*, ---,.','-.e,'_x,_".:7,-;ýý.1 - ----, -ýý-,; t.,ý,. 1ý. ý;... ý,'.ýý... - ýý.,ý " S, - ýw ý_', i/ý,&:-:.ýJl,,_,, 11 I.:ýl ý Z.--.,,,-C,,ý?,,ý.ýý,ý-,V;- "Ol,,,ý,,,L ý.:, ý,,, _;_. -ý. -- -,,___ - a, ý, - ý.1 ".,.1ý.!;ý. Z# ".ýý _ -11 I I I '- - _-,,, Y 'ý, ý _,,,,,. ý I -,; ýf',.ere, -, - ý:ýý-',:ýý'-,ý'i,ý,,.ý',;ý;-"-ý--ý,ý.ý ý. _'ý -,,ý.;ý -,,fý",""' '77"', ý'v I",. ý `-_ -,, 1,, -, -- ý, ý, ': ý 11, _!ýý,,, ý,_,, -, " _'ý ý- ý " - e, - -.,. le,. _ - ý,,ý ".-,ql,, to 11 11 - - ýý ýý, -. -,ý, -.__ ý-rva C,.,, _ý, '-,%, ý ",ý- "ý - - --17 - ý - 1. ". " ý.',; - I ý I I - ý-ý'- ý, 'i - 1, 5-;4ez la.ý_, ",,,-,-,, ý. _ I,-. I I.-I e, --,ýo t Cý. ýi.,--- _,..,. ý I. - N_, ý'?ý-, ýý"e:--;- I ý -1 -:1 - I I ''. - I ý ý' i ý _, _,r%ý.,. - ý.ý - I - -.. - '. e, - - I I -,,ý' "., -,. 'W". eeý:.7ý.,ý,ý,,,ýý. -,;. '. 1ý., I -,. I,, - " -.--: ý " - e,-ý,-., ", 1ý - ý, 1. - ý ",,.ýý _ý4,ý ',- - - "!, I I - " - - I " I. ý _.. x, -,-'k" ý " ýý: - 11, - " I;, 11 ", I. I, - _-,.e ý, ýx' ýý i '. I - ý. j -. 1, -. ý - I ''. __ -Ml-. 9 -, ý.ý;, - -,ýl I.,., I.;,,, " 7;ý, ý'l.. 11 1, 11 - - - I, _ýý,,m,..,ýý,,-;:ý,. -,q 1, _.. - ý.1 -1 11, -, ý -, ýj -!:ý-7,ý - -,., ý.. I_,,., -, I, ý'l l!t_"'.. ý I I I I I. - I: -, ý - I, " - - ý, e - I. - % %,,;,:" 1';_ý - - I I I ý,',* ý 1ýý, I ý - I - 1, ý ý. -,., - -- -, "I. _:'-ý' - jeý.týý I ý ý ý,1ý,. - -,:, - I -,;,...,111 ýý, I, _,", I 1. I -., ý ý -1 rýý,_ i _, -,, -,,,,e,, *;,e - _'ý I -.,, I,, -.. ý, ý' _.': 1, ý; 1.1ý111 1-111 _LA ý" 11,. 11 ý - I,, - -, I ý: ý I r _j % ý I -. I ý;,.-;ý i ý,, I j;j,ýý,- I;ý 17:ý.:-,... ý - ý - I -, 1ý 11, " -, -- -- _ý 1. -. I '-.,..... I - ýJZý -, 4 ý11. " I T- -.ý,, ý, - ý.., - - -. ý ý - -,ýer * _ _;ýý ". I ýz,.1 - I I i. ýl 1. -. 1.11, _. - ý ý I I. _,,:_,.,- -.. ý.ý. 11 -, - _ ýl L - - I -., ý:, I, " - -:11 " ý.... -1. I. I ý ý, NA -%W,, 71 -,; 11'r I -, _ý'.'-ý-. L;ý,ýý, -, _.,,, ý, ý - I -I-- 11 I,. - 'ý.ý _. 11. 11..-. ", lt_, - I -;t -, - - eý ".,, 11,,, I, ýý, - ý - ý: 1 _. I,,.... - -,_ -,, I... ".:ý,N -,7 ý, -, -F,ý ý - ý -, ý -,-_,ýý, -1.. I ý - Y- I, ý '. ý 1, I, ýý -,ýl `, 4 __, "t,,ýý I,&--,7:ý ",,."',,ý,, ý;W, _ -',,.,,^ý, ';', -, _:,, - ý I - *, ý7,,.,, ý_ ý1ý71,,.-;ý - -v.,,,, "a " -;W, - ý ý, - I I,f- -11 -, ý_, - -;!j, ýý 1, ý,ý. _; ý,ý, ý,: ý,, 1ý_ -...:'- --'.:", 'A'. '41iiý I _. "I -ý:, ý..!,-,:ý!", t., -,. ý _. -, -.,ý ý.- ý I - ý'. e' -,-ý" 7ý, W, -- ýý,a, ".", - _d4%v-,ý,. -,ý ý. -, -, I - __ý_,, _ - I - ýý -, ýý,o - i 11.,,,, rrr*.."o iý'.. 11 4- ý *. I - ý - - ii, aoý.. ý; '11ý '. I.ýz il-,_ ý,-_t- 41. - - - -, - I =g-,ý' I:-ý........ - I I ý _! - I, ý - _ý' I I I,:_. ý,_ -.;.-. __ýý `,__'17!ý Jiý_,,. -, ".ýTl--.-,-, - -. ý ý ý. -, - -, - - - ý I - -1.. s 'N.,.4ý.) 11........ ý -.,ý_ý, ý! ý--, ý-_ý --e,,-!,i?#'_ _- -, - '-.",.,,. I I. I - I I, -ý,,. -. i I, - 'T." ý " ý,, e,.. o,ý- ý -1.ý -,. I,. ý,,,,ý __.. _ ý,ý " - ý,-I- - ý - I.tiýý,,,ý..-,,!.,f:t.. - 1-11 kf 1-1 -,ý., - ý, 4-ý --, ý!- ee t_ " ý - I '. i.1 - -. _ý::,., - L.'.: I I. _Y, 1.1,,,-,k - - -,,, 11, I ý. I -, - il * ý.Z ", " il, ý. _; ý ý: ý_ ý ý',-, -;,. ý': --, ý...,ý, - ý,. Z:,-i; ý. 1. i _-: ý., ý, -, '1ý - Lt ý ý'. I ^ ý, -- - -I-'., - - -, ", --, -ý -_ ý ý.: - -1,, ý I,. - I. -, -.,.- ý -e - -. ý ý ý ý I I _ýý 'ý 1__-,-.ý_ -,, ý, ý, 1, I ý,,ý,k, I.ý.l,.. 1, -9, - - 7.,. I ý -.1 - - - ý ý ý.4ý 5ý7,,. so:, I ýl., I ý.,ý I,.." I 0, "I, ",ý `1;11 - Pý 'r, - -,,, -y --!- " - ", ",-.,::, 'ý, -. _, - I,.. I ýý " -, ý I:; -ý,,.- ý" 4,4,ýý, -et -!4. 'C', -,. -.. ý.. ý, - " -e eýl - _,,e, " -;,--f-lý.ý,-,-_. - - ýý, -,,. ý I, ý, I'-,.1 I I -.,k, 'IFO,; N -1 ku.,,,. _ -..,- r.-, -1,,, -'-'-'!,, -,;ý I.., * ý -_ ý, ý- -7;-,,ý - - ý.ý _;ýý -- ý t. - '., -, W, ýý,!, I, '] - -. ý r- "I I I I ),ý I,iý,ýý ý..,\ " L, I,. ý, ". '.,,-;, ý _. " -.,*.,--, " - I,ý - ý.,,, -,,,-,,ý ý, _ý.. -,, ý -ý' -ý " ýýl t'*,. ý y i I Tý.ý i ': -."; ',ý - ý-* ý,l -;-: 41,-1 ý,:, V,:,ý " ýý - __ __ - I -,, - - ýý`ýý', ý ý,:`-ý:ýý-,.ý., - I -1 - I I I. I -.ý_ý,,,ý,, ýý,,'., ý. ýý-, ",,, ý,::,.. I -,ý--rn,,,.', ý(ý, n.", - ", ý,,,ý ý - -, ý,l,;,,,,,,;, lzý, _.,_, ", _.;ý,t. - -,-ýý'.- ý,,, '.1 ý I ý, ý, ý ý __ -, V -,wl ý. L.p -.ý. 1 14, -',, ý -,'- -,' ". *,-..,, ý,,ý. - - - I I I ý' ý, -.. - I,,, I,,. -.., '., ý.:,:.'jr"-,,-ýý_-:-..ý, '. -,.,ý,. ", ý,;e,.. _7: -: ý - - 1, o" ýl -.4 -, ýý I ý,.,.",_ý ý, I _ _ - I I. 1, I ý I _ -11 _.._ ýj-.,7,,,". 1, ýý7.I I " -,_-ý, 7ýk - - - -, - -, _,;,,. I. - -, I, I ý ". -,.. I.e, -., -,. I ý - 1 _,- - 1 ý -,, ", -, ý,, ý-,;?ý ifl,ý 1, - _. M -,ý,' - - ý,_ 7:, ý, _. -,. - - - - - ý - -., I I..... ýý I All",, 'VV ý J!eý ý;,e:,,,-: -,.,. I z rle.,- -- ý I -,,,.; -, I I I I ý - ý *ý,,, L `ý e:1 _ - -. - - ":t I Týý.. ý - " -,, - - - - - " '. - I. I,!ý -:,:! - I, 'g..,-, -, -,, ý'.7 ý, 1_ý -,. --' -. - -ý ';L ý-."-, ýý_,-ý,.ý,-ý-;ý, ý,:ý'ýQ _Z:ý ýý.y ý -, I,,. _ý,ý, -. -, - -4 4ý ýVi,!-', __ I I,;:ýý. - 1, -1 -_%, I -, -1, ý.. ý, -'ý,,, eý - * -;, _ý - - I I - ý. -e ýl,, ->417 ý, " -:ý,,-, -. ý' ý r % - 11 - -, ý ý ý`-L -, -,, ý ý ý - ý ý_---.-:ý.ý.,;-_--, - _. _. I -i ý-. i -,::eiý " ýý',,7'ý ý. -.1. iw_, - - -.. - ý 4 - _ - T ý 1:1',",.,., - ý.ýý.:,ý ý - -, 1, _., __,",. I,, --!ý.-,.1ý ý - ý:, _.,,ý' -ý,,ý_. ý_..,. ý, ý, 1ýý_ ý ý - ý. I __ --_ý:ý,",e,-":, t ý,4,ý',,ý, - -: _, ý - - I. - -, i eer, ý:,,ý ''I, " -1:,V, ýýO-, ý 7-ý -ý _-,%. ý I ýz -: " -,,. I: I ý_O_ I,.ý ý7,. -,,.,,, -, ý,. -, -- I ---, -,,,,,-- `-ýý-ý', I I - - - - -, _ý ý4,,. -,;.,_ ý - _ -..ý, 4- ý ý ". ý, _ ý ý., -,,,I, -, I, ý, - I -. ý,.,,. -.1 ee.-- _: _,!, - _ ý, -,, -, ý ". ".,,,ý, ` - -ýý'-_ -ý,,ý,, - ý _:,ý_., ý!, -, e - - " ý. -,, -,. I 1:, - -,- - -: " '', __ - _-, - -. - -vwý,,, r 1: * '., I ý,, -,-,r,ýjz - "* - tý..ý!;2ý-,'ý,, _: -_,!-ý,, _-,. - `, " I- "., - ".:,r, - -,,.,-.1 - -- " - ý_ _, 1-1- -,.., 1,;ý, -L- -- ýe-e ýz_ ý!..,, ýý,, ý - I. ý ý - ý I -1 ý, -;-.;ý, -.. ':'-. -ý e.-. - - " - ý. ý ý. I I - I ý, -ý, -:, - -ý -,, ý,_Z.ý,, -;::,-; - -,.,.,ýt ", _:ý, __,7,;ý:. -,ý,,,_ý,. ý -. I ý J_ ý - -1 " I It-,' ý ý -,-,-,ý;, - ý, - -;# ", -.4 _., ý-ýý_- ý-ý',--ýý-,-,.-,ý,,_, ---.. 1,,,,, I - _- I -1 -., - ý I __ý 1 4,ýý-:,%,:ý - - 'It - -.1 -.1 ''!!4" ý_*- ý'..", _ I -,:, ý_ ý,,. - -.,- 'X-, "VI ý.ýý:ýý __. ý ý -,. - -,,ýý ý ý ý -. " -'-'T-,.. ý,, i_. -',,-,;ýý,;-)".;ý,',.ý.,7,--,4',ýe.- _ 1 ý, -, ý'.- -\.-._".,,, " - '- " - - ý ". I 1.;. i:ý,"er7 -,,,ý *_ý' - ý',. ý -:, ý ý,_ _,.-,,, m ---.ý ýý ý_ " ýý- - -,*,ý,"',_.", _,, -,,.-, -.. -,.ýý.4. - ý ý _ ý -.. - -,,, ý " ",,,-.:, ý, - 1-.1 r,_-,-,_ 4-ý ý _'; -., - ý - ',ý-, ýý - I - I 1..,,'-- _,ýý f ( ^qftl -,, -,, I, ý - I--V -,,,;;, ý,,,ý-'.ý:,:.l.%elle,'ýr -,,,,,, ý I 1: J11 If, "ý' - - - ýý - ý, -,, ýý __ 1ý.,, ý - ý, _1!1ý ý _-,, I ". - _, - ý -;, __ -, -, -, I., e, -,..." __ -,, - -.::, - 74.. ý. - I. - ý wl - ý - _', ý -. I '' - - 11 I I I _1-1. ý ý -1..., I ý -1 ý., ý,, -,,,,, -,, -: 4 1... I )_ -:- 1, - ' T.", -, ý. I I..,:,,, ý ý - ý I ý, Z. -... - I- o,- -,7, 1. ý ý ý, -,, I,...,, " ý. I I, -,, f, - -1 - I __,:1 ýý..Zilý I,,. ý-, "' " ý Fr,. I Z,,,,ee_ý, " -L, -f NVllT:\,NT-G,ý'-4_ 't _.ze. ý _. 11 -. - - 1.,_ - - - - I -: t ý 1, - - ý _%_ - I I ý.1. - I ý,:,, I., I, ý A, 14.ý --- - ý- W__ - A-M.-Mm:.TT G"T ` ý'' _ýZý___'-_,__ _ýý,_-_?l - - ý. (1, __ 1ý, -ý - -ý N, ý -M. ',, ýý,, - ý: _,_ _ - m I I -7!1--_.oý - 7 --- - - ".., -.., -,., 1, 14"'..'_ llý.,ý -, - 11,ýý%7 -- - -, - 141... ý - - - -. " 1 - -,-:1 -, - ý. " - ýý:2 ýr ý "k - _;_ -ý - 1 --,, - I ý I. - _ 'ý ". -ý, ", --., _. -1 eae -ý-- ýý:, _)4i'ý. - 1ý-ýý i.-ý,ý-, ý4 __ý,_!... ý.ý__ ý-i I. ý _ - - "I.:ý- - ýý--ý- ý ý-,ý _ý,, ý-,:,,.ýý,, _ý - - -.1. _ ý ý, ý, - --roqý,;--ir- ý - tk'ýý,,,-_ ýZ, ý, ---.-. _, o'-?e -1,;L"',, ýý,ý -1 - _''ý_,L_ - ý _ _,;,.. t -, -,:-,:cl I..,i;ý-,,;,ý _'i ý,;.. - _f ý ý, - - ý '" "')ýý4 - - I - -.. - - --\ -,..:!.. I ý -.--, -,;S,;-F<ý, I eýt, _,ý. - ý41%,,.,, I -1,; - " 11 1ý:ý Z.i, I -,V-týt ".1 -1,. - 7,,I.,-I- _,_ý'ý_,, -, " - - - - a - -,, ` e- ý,. _ý, re,, ý,_4,." 4e..t ý,. ý, ý.., ýý ý, -...,.ý - -&Txr- "' - -2 el; -ý_ ";* ". _'. I - ", - -, ý _.T._.. - - -. _. -.1. - ','),.' ý7,.ý_T ý77ý - _7 - -.ý - - -,ý -- I I ".1 _l 4, ý -, -1, ý, - ý4-1ýý_lt_.ý,;, - ý - I " eeý_ - ý - _..." I -- -Y,, - _?Zý,%,ý,ý,_-.,'ý,-,.-. _ý F'ý -,. _-,.1, _ý. ) ýý. - -ý-_,- _,." I - ý. ", ý -,. -, _ý, -, ýzl. ^ -, ýý,,,,,, ý_ý_, - -,.. I.1,,ý.1ý., ý -,,4_,C__ýý " - Ajý. - ý-ý,-ý I. I. ý, ':, ", ý, I, - ý1., ý._,,,,ý-.'ý ýý,ý.,,*,,ý,4.. -,, "; " __ý -,.,, ý,ý-' -, ""j:N ý - -;, ý- -'ý,,., - - " `: 'I- ýý, _- 'ý*,-.;j, " ý,..." -;ý_,ý -ý " I.- 4-- ',,,- --. ý __ '' I - -, - I ýý _: _< ",., ýýW _,;" - '. ý ",.: 1, " - -_, ýý " ý I,, -. k ý,,ý_ - -, --,_ "I"', 'ý'.ý ýý _ý ý 'ýý' )ýt- ýý 1"I - - - 'Lý _. - -TI - ' _'._t'-ýc, - ý;,,-,, ý - -ýý ".,:,.,.;, - I, - I - I - - I I.;,. -. I - -. - -... - __ ý I ý I _ý:;!ý:ý,ýý k, - " - - __: _-, - -ý,:1,,. I. 1- % "., - ý _ -,,ý '!." -'-,, ý_,ý'., -'--'- 4 - < ý. 7,.",,, " - - ý ý, -- I ý'. i, - --,,, 1. -.1, ý _ý,, ý. ý. -, - ý, -, 1. ý, -,!ý,.ý.ýi,ý4_ - _ý_",ý__;,ýý_: - - 'ý Lý-ý'!-,,, '_, ý_ -, ý -,'- -,ý', I: ý -ý ý. I. ýýlerl_, ý 1ý-Sýt,:ý ý,ý, t:7, - f _-; -I.. ý " A - _ -, -,.j.,f.!-rl` " - " ýý__i!ý,,,ý1:1_ I;, I -,,_ -,,, ý, '',-, - I 11 ý - - - - 11 ý.,. - 1. ýý.ý ý. ý 't.-,i, ý--_ __i " I " - ý- ýg, ei; L I ý1,40_ ý ý,.ý;, * _': 1 --ý." I - ". - 1,, - Z;:- -,.ýj " -,ý`,,,,, ý - I - *0, __ ý -,. ý _ I I -,, " ýý,-ý,, -L; " ý -,....ý, ", -_,. - - 11.ý __ 'e. " ý: ''.:11 "., " it: ff. I:_ I, -:, -?11 -p i.ý - - ý,ý.., ý -. ý ý ý.1 -11. I - -. -. ý - -1 - I!ý:,;ý___ I ý I 'ftl.;'_4ý,! r'.1 ý,,ý;,ý;,,ý_f.., -, ýý-,ý,,,ý,%ý:, _ý 1; e" 7,. ý,ýk* - i ý,!.,je-ý--'-!ýý. '- ý " _ý-,, - -- ý%;ý-, -,--, -,. -,, - -:, -,::ý, - - -. J',, _ýý, - _: -, ý -, ýL ` -.,ý, - I I I -,ý,;il"ý, -._.--i.ý -, I,, -., ý.., ý I.' I" ý - _jeý - ýý ý L _I ý',, " " - ',--' - I -,:-%, - I.'- -, ý ý. I I I,ýý;. - - _, -.. ý -...,.- ý ý. -,q,.. ". -, - `ý. I - - I -.eý -: -.-' t,, ý,. '., & k-4, -,,_ ý. I. ý ý A -, -ý,.ý ý, - ý, -11',,,ý, 1ý._ -, -., I '. -: 'Aý,:'-,ý,- -:ý;;: ý ý ý -,, ý_ ý." ý__ - -.ý 'ý - - _ý., ý'ý*._ý,ý', 'ý 'L, -- 5t, - - -1 -,,,,. ý-_-ý, -_ 1ý,ý,ý 1,,,ý_ ý) ý,.* _ý_, - - ý ý, - - _'.7ý._ ",4-, ý,_', Z.-,r--.-- _;,-t,,. ", -. I - -, - " - - '111-- 11 -. 1.11 - 1. I -1.1 _-;O,, ''.,7,ý",. _;, ý, -, I,, 11.,ý, - -, ý I ý',ý_,,,,, _ _ ý ý, '.,ee,7,:.;ý:,_,ý-,-, -ý -'_- -.. ý-.",-`-:ý-,-ý,_ý._,ý,,,.. -;_.,; " ý -,!-. ý - -,-ý,,7. I ',-, - -,,2? ý - "I, -ý", ý, _*ý -,-- - _ý,-ý 11.eýý., --Aý,ý,:,!ý;-,,,ý ý, ý -,,,, -.,. - -. ý ý ý., __ýý ý.rZ'rý,ýý_'X- _ý_.' - ý - - -ý'Fi L,ý-;;ýfý,ý7 -; " - _;_'. -, -,, - - ý'. 1.., "..V,,, % ZA' ý-_,,,:ýý,,,ýý:, - - - 1ý -;,:-, ý - -,.-,.-.,,, _- -;ý:. '.,'ýi _,:- 1, ý',,ý',. "..;J--ý'-ý'*_,ý ý- __-_ý _'-.ý ý,,e _ ý -, - " -_t, -,-ý_-,. 1 -7-,, __,. _ý:,; __ ý'-ý,:?ý-,- ýý,; ý ev%_,ý"7w., - ý-ý. - -,., I. -.,, - ý - _, -ý!ýý " - - - `-,ý,ýý,ý,:ý,, ý.. ý - -e v.. -,, _: - ý: ',, ý -,_ý ý, "t., ý..,.k,.,'-ýý-ýý`-,,-ýý,%R tý'ýý-'ý,ý - ý,;,,,j I,,,, ý ýi - -.,-,,, ýý-.--_;,, "., I - ý, I _ I -.. ýl ", I ý I' I - - 'ýý,,, ' 'ý_ -.ý,. -', -1 -., -ý-,-,,'ý- ýý:"ýý:ýý-'f - -,ýý -ý, ý ý; L,;,,ý: ýý - -,,* -ý -. -:, -._.. I - I -.. ý,, -..ý,ý! ýý, - ý'ý % 4 ý. -, I. ýý __ -41 L'ý I vl- - -'--I W_ I., --., - - -, ý, __,,..C- "-,',`, - ",_ -, " e, ",;ý;-:,,.:.;,"..,_----ý,,,,, " _ 77, ý 11 ý - I ý, _ýý, _-;%ý _,ýýt V il': -,;:,,,.r,_.ý,... -,. "ý., I, '-.. 1,'ý ".,-, _ - - -, ý. I.. ý. I!,&k - "-";,;jez!p-eeý-p,.ý,; _';ý',-, -- - ý " ý ",.,: ý - lr 1. I ý -. _ý ý ý, rl, _ ",, '-,;ý, --, - - `, -,._ý -,-'., ý,,. - -. l_ ý,: ý "', 4".; ý -ýý ýiýý,,, -.-',--. %, -:!ý',,.., I - ý -. -, ý,,ý_, I. ý I -, " - "I. f-. ý -1 ý I __ -, I 1 ý - " -ý - _,; ý k 4, ',- -,, Z.it-,",.., ",,,'7,,ý ",, " ý,.'ý.'Il I,__", '. 7, 1,, 1ý_*. -ýýi,ý--4,,, I ý, -. - -'. '.., -,,,,,,,,,,I, ".,ý- _ý:,,_11., -,... ý... -. - -, -ý A,ý-,ý 1ýý,ý tlýy--,t-ý,l - -%l ý'_ -ý:i ý_ 1 ". t -ý7---, -, ",,,ý'ý.::, ý,ý - ý -, -- -,.. ý._ _ý__,,ý-,.,- 6, ý "Y)., 'ý -,ý'ý -,.,. -, _ -,,, ýý I* I.,.,..ý2 1 Z_ý -.< -.,ýý_.,;; _ýý`ý,krwe;;:-_,,-. - -ý,,l,- - ý -: X ' I... I " I-.*,ý- ýZ'O-v-,ý-_.`-ý'- - ý,ý ý - ---7, -, ý, - -ý --,,, ý ý _,:!ý- ý ý.. -, --, ý _: ý _ -, I ý ý - - _ -- __"ý, - I u I,,,. % I VIEWS OF HOMIEOPATHY; WITH REASONS FOR EXAMINING AND ADMITTING IT AS A Principle in Medical Seience, By DANIEL HOLT, M. D. "A certis et exploratis petendum esse prnsidium." NEW HAVEN: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY 3. H. BENRAAM. 1845. PREFACE. IT is not designed in this essay to give even the general outlines, either of the principles or practice of the Homceopathic system of medicine; but to state some of the points of distinction between this and the ordinary practice--and to make some comparisons between them. This has been undertaken with a view to see whether the Homceopathic doctrine in medicine is founded in truth, and therefore entitled to the standing which it claims as a science, or fundamental law of nature; or whether it is really quackery, as it has sometimes been accused. In doing this, the aim of the author has been to give it an impartial, though critical examination, and to satisfy himself, has spared no pains either in the practical application of the medicine on this principle, or in the examination of what has been written upon the subject. For the impartial aid of the most distinguished men in this country, of both schools, the author is under the highest obligations; and reviewing, as he has, the principles of medical science generally, he trusts the conclusions to which he has arrived, are founded on a substantial basis. The main argument is designed to give the essential points of the doctrine, and to meet the principal objections which are urged against it; I have designed this part for the common reader espe. 4 cially. In the Appendix, a few cases are stated from my own early application of the medicine, followed by some observations which are strictly of a medical character, designed more especially for the psofession; still I have endeavored to avoid technical terms, so as to render it intelligible to the common reader. From repeated solicitations from many medical brethren of both schools, and from others, the views which I entertain upon a subject now of general interest to the community, are given to the public. NEw HAVEN, August, 1845. D. H. VIEWS OF IIOMIE OPATHY, IT is sometimes the case that there are circumstances in the life of an individual, which render it not only expedient, but even a duty which he owes to his friends and the public, to give an exposition of the views which he entertains upon a particular subject, especially so, when that subject is one which is intimately connected with the welfare of society. This rule may hold good, whether it is applied to a subject which is strictly scientific or not. It is no new idea, that subjects which are comparatively new, and are not properly brought before the public mind for a critical examination of the principles upon which they are based, are looked upon with suspicion, especially so, when they seem to conflict with long established opinions. That it should be so to a reasonable extent, no one will deny; otherwise we should be liable to fall into errors, and embrace doctrines which are untenable and false; especially is this the case upon subjects of a medical character; and the reason why, in medical science, there are some points which are strongly contested, and which it is certainly difficult to settle, -is because of the nature of the subject. The neces-,sary uncertainty which exists, and must always exist to a greater or less extent, when, we arise as it were above the circle of the exact sciences, which are governed by mere physical laws, and have to'do with laws which are endowed with life, where there are contingencies in the present state of our knowledge, and probably always will be, over which we have not complete control; and hence arises the distinction between the certain or exact, and uncertain sciences, the former embracing the mathematical and strictly physical sci-. ences, ending where life begins, and the latter, commen,cing with organization, and running through all the departments of organic and animal life. All the principles in the three professions, and in political and moral philosophy of course belong to' the latter. And hence we see the reason why, upon'certain subjects, there is such a general agreement, and while upon others such a diversity of opinion;,,one belongs to the former, and the other to the 6 latter. From this fact we should be cautious in adopting hastily new doctrines; but we should endeavor to avoid the other extreme. And as the uncertain sciences are progressive, or in other words, our knowledge of their laws, and the various changes which are induced by external circumstances, are becoming more advanced, we are in danger of being too much settled in old opinions, on the one hand, or too anxious to adopt new ones on the other. And we can all safely adopt as our motto, in the investigation of truth, "every new doctrine, whether in physics, in politics, or in morals, should be rigidly scrutinized, that we may not embrace error on the one hand, or reject truth on the other." The subject which I have been led to investigate, and which lead to these observations, it need not be said is looked upon in a very different light, both in and out of the medical profession. Within the profession, at -this time, it is looked upon as something out of the way, as not strictly orthodox. Some even have entertained the idea that it is all quackery; and there are indeed nearly as many opinions as there are men, though professional opinion is becoming much more favorable toward an investigation of the subject. Investigating the subject as I have, and entertaining the views which I do, I am perhaps bound to give them to my professional friends and the public. I have often of late been met with inquiries like the following, both by my professional brethren and others, "What is Homcec,pathy? "-" I understand Dr. has become a Hommoopath!"--"In what respects have you changed your medical views? "-" What are the fundamental distinctions between Homoeopathy and Allopathy?" so called.--" Is'nt Homceopathy Quackery? " &c., &c. These I hold to be important inquiries, and such as demand an answer. The truth is, that the medical profession generally, have not rigidly examined the principles upon which the distinction between the two schools is founded. Most of them honestly acknowledge this to be the fact; they have supposed it to be like many other humbugs of the day, unworthy of investigation; that it will soon be over, &c. Others are unfortunately more determined in their opposition, owing, perhaps, to circumstances in which they are placed; or the difficulty in bringing their minds to entertain an idea contrary in any degree to pre-conceived opinions; or they have committed themselves against it, and are unwilling to retract their assertions. Indeed, there is in our profession, as well as out of it, in the minds of a certain class of men, and it is probably mainly owing to their mental constitution, a disposition to cling to their old notions with a deadly grasp; to settle in their own minds never to change 7 their opinions; which, in their views, is virtually to acknowledge they have been wrong: this holds on other subjects, and I have found it rather to increase with age; and have sometimes thought, that on scientific subjects, it is almost as hard to see new truth, and thereby displace pre-conceived opinions, as it is for old transgressors to cease from sinning. It is unfortunate for such men, and for the world at large, that they are engaged in a profession, or a department of science, which is progressive, which is eminently true of medicine; (though, unfortunately, it is admitted that in some of its departments, the progress has been scarcely visible for some time); still medicine is a progressive science, as is chemistry and geology. This class of men do better in those sciences where there are more settled and fixed principles, as in mathematics, and other exact sciences. In practical life, and in morals, they are correct in their views upon immutable principles, upon laws which are unchangable; upon institutions in society which are permanent; and upon precepts which are of perpetual obligation;-but upon those subjects where a change in circumstances produces a corresponding change in institutions, they are in fault. Such men have in general an ultra veneration for the past,-they cling too much to the dogmas that were in vogue whan they finished their studies. They are apt, especially as they become advanced in life, to look with suspicion upon all new things, imagine that the whole world is running a race with itself, and that every body is driving Jehu's chariot. On the other hand, we should avoid the extreme; we should, perhaps, as often check the excessive ardor of youth, as avoid the cautious philosophy of age. There are, especially in medicine, many dangerous shoals and quicksands, and many a wreck may still be seen; theories proving "but the butterflies of the day," not sustained by facts; and again, "more false facts than false theories." We should shun them both. There is on many subjects at least, "a golden mean" in the investigation of truth, one which avoids Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the other. An investigation of the subject under consideration, I hold will do no injury, unless a man is incapable of distinguishing between truth and error. I hold, considering the wake that Homcoopathy is making in the world, that its principles should be investigated. It claims to be true, founded in scientific principles, and applicable to the relief of marikind suffering from disease; and further, that in certain respects it is a superior system. On the other hand, it is denied, and by some even denounced without an investigation. Now I hold that if it is true, the medical profession are bound to examine it 8 and apply it in practice. If it is all quackery, and those in and out of the profession who are engaged in it, are all " knaves or fools," then are not the profession under the strongest moral obligation to investigate and remove the great evil, or use their influence in doing it? The fact that it is a difficult system to investigate or apply in practice, is not a sufficient argument, if it is more successful, so long as we have powers which are capable of applying it. If it requires years of study, and in the present imperfect state, will not allow us time, labor, and expense of investigation, it seems to me that those who know nothing of it, either in practice or principle, can have nothing to say. If all are to wait to see whether any doctrine is true, the progress of truth will be indeed slow. What then are the fundamental principles upon which the Homoeopathic practice is founded? It is not that there are two separate and distinct schools, as some might suppose. Most of the preparatory studies, and what are absolutely necessary, are the same in both. Anatomy, or the study of the system, is the same of course. Physiology, or the natural and healthy performance of the functions of the different organs, is the same. Pathology, or the unnatural or diseased actions of the vital organs, is essentially the same. Therapeutics, or the application of remedies to this diseased condilion, is different. Here the two schools separate. They hold alike also, on many other points, especially those which lead to a fundamental distinction between science and real quackery, viz.: that there are certain substances which are naturally beneficial, or necessary to the system in health, which we call nutriment, while there is another class of articles which are uniformly injurious in health, and poisonous when given so as materially to effect the system; these are called medicines, and by a change of the system in a diseased state, these substances, before injurious, now become remedial agents, in other words, tend to restore health, either by removing the diseased action, or otherwise: so that all scientifiL physicians agree that all remedies are such, not from their intrinsic virtues, but from the change in the system, from health to disease, they being properly applied become beneficial; though they are all evils in themselves, and always so in health, still in disease become remedies. Quackery, on the other hand, claims that their favorite remedies, are remedies or beneficial as well in health as in disease, good at all times, friendly to the system, &c., and hence it cries out against every, thing which is a poison. Ignorance supposes that what is a poison under any circumstances is so under all. That it is the duty of the physician 9 to cure the patient in the most speedy, safe and effectual manner, and when medicine is misapplied, it may do positive injury in proportion to the quantity administered; here the two schools agree, quackery dissents, claiming that what is really medicine:cannot do injury. On many fundamental points then, Hommeopathy and Allopathy agree. They disagree on the application of remedial agents to the system in a diseased condition. The term Homceopathy is derived from two Greek words, which signify similar disease, or like suffering, expressed in Latin by similia similibus curantur; in other words, diseases are cured by medicines which would, if given to a person in health, and in large quantities, produce a condition or train of symptoms similar to those which are manifested in the disease. And the term Allopathy is derived from words which signify other diseases, or opposite suffering; contraria contrariis curantur, or diseases are cured by remedies which produce other, or even opposite effects. It should be strictly other effects, if it is directly opposite, it is Antipathy. In Allopathy (or the regular practice) it is very true that medicines do not all operate on other principles; and I had long been of opinion, that what are called deobstruents or alteratives, from the nature of their effect, and from the manner of their application, were given on the Homceopathic principle, though without a fixed and definite rule for their application. So that on this point, the two schools come very neat together. The Allopathic cures disease by applying general means, at best indirectly, and consequently large doses of medicine, and so as to produce often sensible effect from the medicine, aside from the disease. The Homoeopathic is the direct, or specific application of medicine to the diseased point, with, in general, no other sensible effect than a cessation of the symptoms of disease. The former cures indirectly, the latter directly. In Allopathic practice, all medicines are divided in classes according to their general effect; tonics, such as give strength; debilitants, such as reduce strength and relieve fever; diaphoretics, such as cause sweating; cathartics, such as restore or increase the natural action of the intestines; narcotics, such as relieve pain, &c.; and when any of the functions of the system are so disturbed, they are restored by giving one or more of these articles. If there is debility, tonics are given, &c. Many different medicines are combined often. Hommopathy holds that different medicines have each different properties, and there are no two which are exactly alike in every particular; that to give them on their princi-: ple, it is entirely unnecessary, as a general rule, to produce these decided effects to remove disease, but if the appropri2 10 ate remedy in a given case is selected, it, as it were, meets at the point where diseased action commences, and the prominent symptoms are relieved, and the natural functions restored. Homcepathy gives in general but one or two remedies at a time, not in combination. The most difficult point in the --Iomcepathic practice, is to select the most appropriate remedies in a given case. This is done somewhat as fobllows: the disease is critically investigated, all the symptoms are critically examined, giving most importance to the most prominent, or what are pathognomonic, and forming as it were, a complete picture of the disease. Then from the list of medicines, is selected one which is known to produce in a healthy peason, symptoms similar to what are found in the patient, so that, the nearer the image of the effects of the medicine correspond to the symptoms, the more Homcepathic is it to the case, and the more sure of a speedy and permanent effect. This then is the rule for the application of medicine on the Homoeopathic principle, a rule held by Hahnemann, the author of the system, to be a fixed principle in nature, as much as gravitation; certain it is, that it is of very general application, and often -accidentally acted upon in the regular practice, and the medicine operates like a charm, as the phrase is; but it is certain that the observation of this law was first insisted upon by Hahnemann. But physicians have often mistaken this principle of the Homoeopathic school; and hence they will say that a medicine causes the same disease which it cures: that bark, which cures intermittent fever, must, if given freely, produce it: or, if Belladonna is Homoeopathic to Scarlatina, it will produce Scarlatina, &c.; far from the truth. When Hahnemann quaked and shook from taking bark, he never supposed he had marsh intermittent, but a train of symptoms similar to what are manifested in some forms of that disease; in other cases, arsenic produces symptoms more analogous, and hence in such cases will cure more speedily than bark. I have seen a patient under the influence of several grains of Belladonna, taken by accident; there was a high degree of excitement and general fever, attended with hot skin, surface red and hot, throat red, hot, and dry; in many respects similar to certain conditions of scarlet fever; but no one would claim it to be the identical disease. Now, Belladonna is very effectual in that disease or any other, where similar symptoms are manifested. So that, although Homoepathy is a system of specifics in one sense, it is not so much specific to particular diseases, as to particular conditions; for it is the fact, that in most diseases, several remedies will be required; in the early stage one may be most appropriate, in the second another, 11 in the third another, &c., especially in acute diseases. In the early stage, for example, Aconite may be most Homoeopathic, in another, Nuxvomica, Antimony, or Mercury, Medicine operates in small doses when given on the Homoeopathic principle. This is not the fundamental principle, however, but a necessary consequence. So that it is not small doses which makes Homoeopathy, but Homoeopathy which makes small doses; if given on this principle they are necessarily small. The Homoeopathic school give fractions of a grain or drop, and still there is effect produced, in some cases to a very great extent, owing both to the application and the preparation of the medicine which increases its activity. In investigating the subject we were repeatedly assured of the speedy effect of the medicine even by physicians of the old school, who assured us they had given it on this principle. The Homoeopathic medicines are in general the more active articles used in the regular practice, but prepared in a different manner, either in the form of powder or fluids, called dilutions. The dilutions are prepared by mixing one drop of a saturated tincture with ninety-nine of alcohol, this is the-first dilution; one drop of this with ninetynine forms the second, and so on, up to the thirtieth. The powders are prepared by triturating the medicine in the same proportions in the sugar of milk. In short, the quantity of medicine is very small, so far as material is concerned; there is no mistake upon this point. But still when we take everything in nature into view, there are many things which appear to our senses as impossible as the operation of a fractional part of a drop, as we shall endeavor to show. In regard to the preparation and minute division of Homoeopathic medicine, much ridicule has been attached, especially by those who are ignorant of the principles, and nearly so of the capability of matter for minute division. If they would take the trouble to look into some of the philosophical works, they would find something to confirm the Homoeopathic views; at least small doses would not appear as incredible. Whether Hahnemann, or any of his followers have been ultra on the subject ofinfinitesmal doses, I have nothing to say; it is a matter which never can be settled by a priori reasoning, but by simple experiment. We have some facts, mostly derived from Allopathic works, which show that the active agents are perceptible even to our natural senses, and to chemical tests in very small quantities. Such being the fact, we may conceive that they may effect the delicate nervous fibres when in a diseased state. 1 part of solution of mur. soda, to 1,000,000 parts of water, is detected immediately by a weak solution 12 of nitrate of silver. Iodine, 1 to 450,000 parts water, produces a purple color on the addition of starch. 1 part dissolved in 600,000 parts water gives a sensible taste.* Kopp states that -I, part of a grain of arsenic, dissolved in 400,000 parts of water, was detected by hydro sulphurous gas. And Brandt obtained from a solution of AZT part of arseniate of ammonia in 500,000 parts of water, a yellow precipitate, by nit. silver. I now hold in my hand a preparation of the iodide of mercury, a crimson-red powder, which I carefully rubbed down with pure white sugar; it gives a distinct hue, and can readily be distinguished from the pure white powder by the naked eye, in the proportion of 1 part to 20,000; 1 to 10,000 gives a decided peach blow color. Now this is a fair experiment in a coarse way, which only shows that matter may be more minutely divided than we, at first view, would be led to conclude. Microscopic observations have of late years led to many remarkable discoveries, not only in regard to the divisibility of matter, but also relating to infinitesmal animalculi, or organized beings. One drop of water is said to contain 40,000 of these, and " Ehrenberg's late discoveries show that a cubic inch of conglomerate of infusoria contains 41,000 millions of these well organized anamalculi," once living animal.t The particles of light, which have for a long time been held by philosophers to be material, are so small as to escape the most delicate tests; so of heat and electricity. There are well known examples of the perfumes of various substances such as that of musk; even gloves which have merely handled it, giving off for years, particles sufficient to effect the olfactory nerves; and still we are led to believe that the odor of a body is a part of the body itself, in infinitismal doses. But it may be said the difficulty is not in believing in the existence of small doses, but that they should cure disease. This will, it is true, appear more rational, if we can have any explanation. But we must first have the facts. Homoeopathic physicians make it a rule to give a dose sufficient to produce effect, as do the old school; but if it sometimes happens to fail there may be another reason for it, the appropriate remedy is not selected. This would be a natural consequence. My evidence that medicine given on the Homoeopathic principle produpe effect, is based both upon my own observation, and confirmed by the testimony of those who cannot be impeached. In order to try the effects of medicine, having investigated the principles to guide me in * U. S. Dispensatory. t See Silliman's Journal. ,/ //' 13 the application, in the course of several months I applied it in many cases of disease as they arose, slight and severe, acute and chronic, and in some cases the effect was decided, in all very palpable. Now it is said by some that it is imagination which cures, it is a fine thing for the fancy, or it is confidence or faith, or something else; or, at any rate, if neither of these, it is certainly the effect of nature. Now if, in these cases, some of which I shall relate, any of these could have produced the effect, the reader must judge. 1-st. To most of them I was an entire stranger, having been but a short time resident in this city. 2d. Not one of the cases have any idea of Homoeopathy, and I studied to give the medicine in such a form as that their suspicions should not be excited. 3d. Some of them were children. Nor do they know to this day but they had ordinary practice, knowing me to be of that school. Many of these cases were such as we should expect to see sudden effect, in others gradual, depending on the nature of the disease. It is certainly singular, for example, in severe tooth ach of some weeks continuance, even allowing that they will get well of themselves, or that " seeing a doctor" will cure, or imagination, that a particular remedy in like cases should produce a marked and decided effect, and one which had been described by writers, and all these effects be related by the patient voluntarily, without any previous knowledge of what they would do; and why, if the effects are accidental, should they happen exactly at the time when the Homoeopathic remedy was given, for, luckily for truth, but not for the patient, the first remedy in some cases had no effect whatever, although they were as anxious to be relieved, as from the second, when the effect was soon apparent. Cases are not wanting to substantiate the facts; but we have abundant testimony, and the testimony of those who have practiced upon the system for many years, to the general efficacy of the mode of treatment. A general impression prevails that it may do in slight diseases, in chronic cases, where nature will cure, but that it is nonsense to talk about it in acute diseases; but this is not the fact. That it may do better in some forms of disease than others is very probable, but that it will effept robust individual in severe disease, is now beyond dispute. If we refer to the treatment of particular diseases, and compare the practice of the two systems, our medical brethren are driven to take the ground, that such diseases, for example, as scarlet and typhus fever, do much better with little or no treatment; in fact, if facts are adduced, and comparisons between the two systems, we shall see the result. Scarlet fever is a disease which has been exceedingly troublesome 14 to the profession, and I have taken much pains to obtain information on the subject. Probably in epidemics, something like one in every ten prove fatal, on the average; much less in the Homoeopathic treatment. The most successful Allopathic treatment of scarlatina which I have seen reported, is by Dr. Gilbert, in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal; he treated between four and five hundred cases and lost but seven. His treatment was by bleeding in severe cases, followed by a slight impression from belladonna, a few drops of a solution of two grains to an ounce of water. This the profession will judge as nearly Homoeopathic treatment, only aconite to be substituted for bleeding. I have been at the trouble of obtaining statistics, where in every case the result has been decidedly in favor of Homoeopathic treatment. In these statistics I have been careful to see that they have been endorsed by the proper authorities, who are only interested for successful treatment. In cholera, it will not be doubted but medicine is necessary; I have arranged from hospital reports and other documents, so as to show the comparative results. The ordinary treatment and fatality is much as in other reports where cholera was very malignant. At the time it was epidemic in this country, Homoeopathy had made but little progress, but where it was practiced, the success would compare, I believe, with these authenticated reports. CHOLERA IN FRANCE, BY DR. BABIT. Treated Allopathically. Homceopathically. No. of cases, 495,027 No. of cases, 2,239 cured, 254,788 cured, 2,069 died, 240,239 died, 170 49 per cent. died. 7 1-2 per cent. died. IN VIENNA. Allopathically. Homceopathically. No. of cases, 4,500 No. of cases, 581 cured, 3,140 cured, 532 died, 1,360 died, 49 Making deaths 31 per cent. Making deaths 8 per cent. AT BORDEAU. Allopathically. Homceopathically. No. of cases, 104 No. of cases, 31 cured, 32 cured, 25 died, 72 died, 6 Deaths 67 per cent. Deaths 17 per cent. 15 IN RUSSIA. Cured by Homoeopathy 86 cases in 109. by Allopathy 60 " 199. In a teritory in' Hungary, from the report of the health commissioner, it appears that out of a population of 16,289, there were treated Homoeopathically 154, cured 148, died 6. But Homoeopathy has been successful in other diseases, as hospital reports will show. Dr. Becker, of Hamburg, says, " upon comparing the statistics of several Homoeopathic hospitals, it appears, from official statements, that the mortality in them is not quite five in a hundred, whereas, I observe from the statistics of Allopathic hospitals, that the mortality there is eleven in a hundred." In Russia a trial took place with Homoeopathic treatment in the fall and winter of 1829, for five months; of 72 cases of inflammation of the lungs, 70 were cured; 38 cases of inflammatory fever, 35 were discharged cured, 2 convalescent, and one remained; 23 cases of bronchitis, 21 were discharged cured, one removed, and one curable remained. This shows not a very unfavorable result in acute inflammatory diseases. But it may be said this is too far from home, and for ought we know, Homoeopathy is dead there before this. We have, it is true, few hospital reports in this country, from the fact that the system has not been adopted to any considerable extent. In the Half Orphan Asylum, in the city of New York, Which had been under the care of one of the first physicians in the city, there prevailed an obstinate opthalmia and cutaneous disease, which was resisting the ordinary mode of treatment, so much so, that first the eye cases were selected and given to Dr. C. Wright, Homoeopathic, for treatment. In 1842, out of 162 children were 53 cases requiring treatment, 20 in the aggravated form; they were soon cured: and a large number of cutaneous diseases were given to him, and in these he was also successful, (see his report), so much so, that the directors gave him a very flattering encomium in their report; and finally, although they are not a majority friendly to Homoeopathy, still Dr. Wright was put in charge of the institution, which he still retains, merely on account of his successful treatment. The following Table from Dr. Wright's report classes the diseases treated in the Asylum, Homoeopathically, from August llth, 1842, to December 12th, 1843, the date of the report. It will be observed out of 421 cases there were but two deaths; both of these, says the report, were chronic cases. The two most prevalent diseases, it is true, are not frequently fatal, but some of the acute febrile are. At least it is rather favorable for no treatment! 16 DISEASES. a Ophthalmia,..... 108 107 1 Cutaneous diseases,... 142 137 4 1 Pulmonary Catarrh,.... 24 24 Influenza,..... 46 46 Hooping Cough,..... 34 34 Diarrh,...... 29 29 Dysentery,...... 11 11 Inflammation of the Lungs,.. 4 4 do. do. Bowels,.. 1 1 do. do. Brain, chronic,. 1 1 Pleurisy,.,.... 2 2 Croup,...... 3 3 Jaundice,..... 6 6 Concussion of the Brain,... 1 1 Remittent fever,.... 4 4 Convulsions,..... 1 1 Merasmus,..... 3 3 Scarlet fever,..... 1 1 Total, 421 413 5 1 2 It will not do, on either side, in investigating a subject like this, which requires the most critical observation, to depend at all on flying reports, or newspaper statements, or even popular opinion; for I have little confidence in either, in settling a critical scientific point. Enlightened public opinion generally eventually settles down upon the truth; but it generally follows rigid and critical private investigation. It is believed by many that the Homoeopathic school fail in severe cases. It is true they do not profess to be infallible; but the'proper question is, are they on the whole successful? do they cure as many per cent., on the large scale, taking the same disease? Now it is very strange that a hundred, fifty, or even twenty, honorable, pious, scientific, and talented members of our profession, who have, for years, had an extensive practice, and stood eminent in the profession, many of them professors in our colleges, after examining and testing the Homoeopathic principle, should adopt it and give their undivided testimony, that after several years practice they are satisfiad that they can cure diseases, as Celeus says, certe, cito et jucunde, more certainly, quickly and pleasantly. Are they likely to be deceived, if their minds have become 17 unbalanced, or they have become visionary, or as a writer says, "believe in such things as dreams are made of," we should think they would fail in discriminating and judging oftener than they do, that they would not cure at all. And why is it that in families who have had no other practice for years, get along at all? Now, it has sometimes been said, that physicians adopt the Homoeopathic practice from interested motives; but interest certainly would lead the other way, and it may be, (though I have so much charity for my medical brethren as not to believe this to be a general rule,) that this is the reason why they do not investigate. It certainly is true, that the great mass of the medical profession do not investigate any too much. If diseases are cured more speedily, it is more for the interest of the patient than the physician;and the duty of the medical profession is to fight continually against their pecuniary and selfish interest, by the prevention and speedy cure of disease, rather than allow it to make progress. It is sometimes said that Homoeopathy may check a disease at its onset, which otherwise would become severe. Now I hold that the great secret of successful practice in any system, is so directing our early efforts that they shall be effectual in preventing disastrous consequences or secondary effects. He is a more skillful physician who never allows his patient to become very sick, than he who can cure him when so; though the latter faculty is necessary, and will of course' be possessed. We would not consider- a pilot as successful who was continually upon shoals and rocks, although he should frequently extricate himself, without becoming completely wrecked, as we should one who has foresight enough to avoid these dangers. It unquestionably is true, that the Homoeopathic success depends, to some extent perhaps, upon preventing the patient becoming very sick in one sense. This is effected first by the medicine being applied directly, instead of indirectly, to the point, instead of comparatively at random-in its producing a direct or specific effect, instead'f one which is ind rect or general. In directing that medicinal agent which will meet the cause, or the primary link in the chain of morbid sympathies, instead of those which are lower in the series, our whole system is a most delicate and complicated machine; a vital one it is true, and for that very reason more closely linked together, and the several parts more dependent on the normal action of its fellow organs for the performance of their functions. Now, so long as the balance is maintained between the vital forces, there is a regular performance of all the functions of the body and mind, and consequently health. As a delicately constructed machine, where the several 3 s18 parts depend one upon another for the performance of their office, the first wheel or link in the chain being disturbed or displaced, all those depending upon it will also be disturbed in their action. Now in order to restore the regular action of the several parts, if applied at random, will necessarily require much effort; whereas a small amount of power directed to the point where the difficulty commences, or the first link in the broken series, is sufficient to restore it, and those parts necessarily depending upon it will naturally resume their action. A single point, as it were, restored to the right place, may resume the actions of a complicated machine, but if applied at random would of course be ineffectual, or if applied when its action was undisturbed, would produce no perceptible effect. The Homoeopathic method, as it were, directly repairs the injury at the point commenced, while the Allopathic often necessarily applies to the general consecutive disturbance of the whole machinery. We do not bring analogies as proof, but as illustrations, which are sometimes necessary. Now the vital machine is even more dependant, one part upon another, than any artificial one with vital sympathies; one part with another, with life, as a moving power, yet continually liable to become deranged by a variety of causes. We could adduce more proof, were it necessary, of the general success and extent of the Homoeopathic practice, and of the scientific investigations which have been already made; but it would require a volume, nor is it necessary to our purpose. If there is any doubt of there being any facts or any testimony upon the subject, the only way to settle that point in the mind of every individual, is to investigate the subject. If it requires a great amount of testimony, carry outthe investigation; if Homoeopathy can be refuted, the sooner it is done the better; if there is some chaff and wheat mixed together, the closer it is sifted the better. It is generally the chaff which is first seen and which flies in the eyes of those who look on at a distance; the wheat, like truth, lies at the bottom. What though there should happen to be here and there a vaguery, or something that should not happen to be intelligible; real gold in the mine is seldom free from all impurities; it can seldom be coined without raising a little dust; but truth; like pure coin, always grows brighter by "hard rubs;" it never can be annihilated. We cannot judge correctly upon any subject without having critically examined that subject; and the reason why there is so much prejudice against new discoveries in practical science, is because we will not look at the subject "-human nature has ever been so; Gallileo said of Kepler, the Philosopher of Padua, who denounced him as a visionist 19 and quack, "I have invited him repeatedly to look through my glasses, but he pertinaciously refuses to do it." Who was the Philosopher, Kepler or Gallileo?-we should give that weight to the observations of others which is justly due, either in physics or in morals; to reject every thing but our own individual observation, would be in effect to discard all human testimony, and the whole world would be reduced to one great drama of the most grovelling empyricism. There are several reasons why Horhoeopathy should be opposed, notwithstanding its general truth-this has always been the case in new discoveries in science, especially where popular opinion has to be changed, and more so, in proportion as the subject is one of a practical nature, which conflicts with established customs and interests in society-and hence it is true, (and perhaps it is best for the world it should be so,) that all practical improvements have been received by degrees by the public mind. In regard to the opposition to Homoeopathy, it has been the same before. About 200 years ago, Dr. Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood. He was denounced by the old Physiologists, and suffered severely on that account; and it is said that no physician more than 40 years of age at the time of the discovery, ever adopted his views.; and if Providence had not given place to new generations, we should probably now have had physicians who would hold to the old notions-the next generation is the one to give truth universal credence. "Gallileo was twice brought before the magistrate for maintaining that the sun was the centre and the earth revolved around it-a proposition false in philosophy, heretical in religion, and contrary to the testimony of Scripture." The same intolerant spirit was manifested toward Sir Isaac Newton for his philosophical discoveries. "Aristotle and Des Cartes shared the same misfortunes; the former had his books burned, but afterward his doctrines were received with veneration." "Pythagoras was driven from Athens on account of his novel opinions; and for the same reasons Anaxagoras was confined in prison." "Demicritus was treated as a fool by the Abderites for endeavoring to find out the cause of madness by dissection; and Socrates, for having demonstrated the unity of a God, was forced to drink the juice of the hemlock." Mr. Locke, in speaking of the common reception of new truth, says, "Who, by the most cogent arguments will be prevailed upon to disrobe himself of his old opinions and pretensions to knowledge and learning, which, with hard study he hath all his life time been laboring for, and turn himself out stark naked in quest of fresh notions? All the arguments that can be used will be as little able to prevail 20 as the wind did with the traveler to part with his cloak, which he held only the faster;" and Prof. Playfair remarks, " in every society there are some who think themselves interested to maintain things as they found them. The introduction of methods entirely new must often change the relative place of men engaged in scientific pursuits, and must oblige many, after descending from the station they formerly occupied, to take a lower position in the scale of intellectual improvement. The enmity of such men, if they be not actuated by a spirit of real candor and love of truth, is likely to be directed against methods by which their vanity is mortified or their importance lessened." An example of prejudice against new doctrines in medicine is given us in the treatment of inoculation for the modification of small pox, which was prevailing in Boston in 1721. The Royal Society had recommended it. Dr. Boylston being impressed with its probable value, was induced to try it, which he did on his own son and two colored persons in his family, with success. "In this measure he was opposed by the physicians and' clergy, some of whom denounced him from the pulpit, and the inhabitants became enraged. He was obliged to undergo several examinations to answer for his practice, before the authorities of Boston, and although he repeatedly invited the other physicians to examine his cases, and witness his treatment, and judge for themselves, he received only threats and insults in reply. In thus encountering obloquy and reproach, however, Dr. Boylston but experienced the fortune of most of those who have attempted to innovate on long established usages, or to take the lead in the career of public improvement." (See Cooper's Surg. Dictionary.) We see, in this case, a striking example of an improvement the most rigorously opposed at first as a delusive innovation, and the next generation universally adopting it as one of the greatest blessings to mankind. The history of medicine furnishes many striking examples of a similar character. Human nature has not entirely changed in our day. No doubt the old philosophers were sincere-they honestly feared the inculcation of false doctrine and false philosophy, but they did not discriminate between what was false and what was true. Mar it not be so now. In our honest zeal to exclude all quackery, we should examine critically that we do not oppose the progress of truth, for there is a law superior to all human enactments, and a progress in truth which we have no power to check; and, in the language of AncelIon, " Nobody has a right to disturb, to paralyze, or to impede the intellectual progress of mankind; the feeble arm 21 of man cannot long counteract the laws of nature, or overturn the order of the universe." There are many difficulties in the mind, especially of the medical profession. In the first place, they cannot, even though they admit its truth, rid their minds of the irregularity; that it has its peculiarities like quackery, and it has been generally supposed that many of the practitioners are ignorant or uneducated men. We will examine this point. It certainly did not originate and progress like quackery, if there are certain pathognomonic symptoms which are peculiar to quackery-such as pompous pretensions and insinuations; secrecy either in medicine or in treatment; ignorance either in the physicians or the patients-certain it is. that Hommeopathy fails, as a system, to be included. If there are individual practitioners who may happen to be injudicious or even quackish, it ought not to be charged to the system, unless it is a general rule. The same is true in regard to Allopathy. Hommeopathy does not make a great and sudden bluster, as is the case with quackery, but has ever progressed in a gradual manner, by the still and simple power of truth; by convincing by facts rather than by theories;'by truth rather than by imagination. It did not come up in ignorance, or by accident, but within the pale of the profession, in the most scientific nation on earth; and although the discovery of the fundamental law may be said in one sense to be accidental, it is no argument against it, if it can be reduced to scientific priniples. How was it with the discovery of Galvanism? But indeed Hahnemann does not claim the discovery of the principle, but shows conclusively, in his writings, that it had been acted upon in medicine, both by the ancients and moderns; but he reduced it to a principle, whereas it had previously been acted upon empyrically. In order to give some idea of the origin and character of the Hommopathic doctrine, it may not be uninteresting to sketch briefly a few incidents in the life of the author. Samuel Hahnemann, the author of the Homoeopathic system of medicine, was born on the 10th of April, 1755, at Meissen, in Saxony. He early gave evidence of an active mind, and energy of character; so much so that his father, who was in moderate circumstances, determined to educate him with the greatest care. After pursuing his classical course, he, in the year 1775, at the age of 20, entered the university at Leipsic. His limited resources obliged him to make unremitting exertions, and he did much toward his own support, by translations from the English, into his own, the German language. During the period of his medicinal pupilage, he so far gained the confidence of his teachers 22 that he was entrusted with the care of Hospitals, Libraries, &c., which were greatly for his advantage. In the year 1779 he received the degree of Doctor in Medicine, and immediately entered upon the practice of the profession, first settling in Mansfield, but afterward removed to Leipsic. His industry and research during the first ten years of his practice was untiring; endowed with a naturally vigorous constitution, and an active mind, together with an ardent attachment to science, he was well calculated by nature, and now by circumstances with the advantages which Leipsic afforded, to make rapid progress; not only in his own professional studies, but in all the collateral sciences and in the languages. He now devoted much of his time to Mineralogy and Chemistry, which were then, more than half a century ago, little understood, compared with their present state; in Chemistry in particular he made some valuable discoveries. He was engaged extensively in translating the medical works of other languages into his own, and it was while translating Cullen's Materia Medica, that he was first led to investigate the principle which is peculiar to him, and which has given name to his system. This was in 1790, more than half a century since. He continued his researches and experiments by testing upon himself and his friends the effects of medicines for several years, till he should have well settled, in his own mind, at the same time comparing his principles with all that had been written, either by the ancients or the modern medicinal writers. He had ample opportunities, from an extensive practice, to bring every thing to the test of experiment; indeed, his system was emphatically an experimental one, founded, as his friends have all claimed, upon the inductive philosophy. In the year 1796, he first promulgated his Homoeopathic views, in an essay published in Hufeland's Journal. In 1805 he published a treaties on the virtues of medicines, and in 1810 his " Organon." Dr. Hahnemann commenced as a public teacher in 1811, at Leipsic, and from that time was had in high estimation as a man of distinguished scientific attainments. He was now about 40 years of age, and the amount of intellectual labor which he performed after that period, may be partially estimated from the num.ber of his works-for the number of his original works was 61, some of which were voluminous, e. g. his Materia Medica Pura in 6 volumes, and his Chronic Diseases in 4 vols. 8 vo. Many of his works, it is true, were Monographs, or essays upon one subject, mostly medical; but several, however, upon Chemistry, Philosophy, and intellectual and moral subjects. He also translated into his own language, (the German,) about 20 volumes, from the 23 English, Latin,:French and Italian, languages--add to all this a most extensive medical practice, and it will be readily Sadmitted that he must have possessed indefatigable industry. His practice became immense, and he was visited by the wealthy and the nobles of every nation of Europe. He accumulated, by his practice, an immense fortune. In his old age, after having relinquished visiting patients at their homes, his annual income from those who came to consult him. is said to have been $40,000. Hahnemann was unquestionably endowed with the elements of character which constitute, a great man, but still he had his peculiarities. He was born to make a sensation in the world; and it often is the case, that those men who are destined by Providence to step forward upon some, new field of enterprize, whether in science, in politics, or in morals, are endowed with peculiarities which render them rather obnoxious to the mass of mankind. Hahnemann as a writer, would be considered peculiar, and his mode of reasoning in the investigation of truth, is to many-minds at first rather repulsive; and although there is a degree of self-confidence, amounting even to dogmatism, still due allowance being made for all the circumstances, every unprejudiced mind will render to him the honor of a mighty intellect, and a man intent upon the advancement of medical science, and the relief of disease and suffering. A distinguished American physician, after visiting him at his residence in Paris, a few years since, says, " Hahnemann, now near his 90th year, recalls, in his venerable appearance, the ideal of a Seneca or Plato, an Aristotle or Socrates." "His capacious head, of the finest Saxon mould, presented a full broad face, expressive of a noble benevolence and high intelligence, while the' illuminated eye and speaking lip indicated ceaseless energy and unyielding determination, that have enabled him, amid the most disheartening embarrassments, to achieve the reward of his highest aspirations-the triumph of a truth, to which he thus impressively alluded:S 'I present to you a truth long sought for, the revelation of an eternal principle in nature. I appeal to existing facts alone to convince you; and when a conscientious course of study shall crown your researches with success, as I have done, bless Providence for the immense benefaction he has allowed to descend upon the earth through my humble agency, for I have been but a feeble instrument of that Omnipotence, before which we all bow in humility.'" The death of HI-ahnemann, occurred in April, 1843, in the 88th year of his age. A writer, speaking of him in his last sickness, after stating his mental calmness and his clear and un 24 clouded intellect, impaired neither by age nor sickness, says, in reply to the remark of his afflicted wife, in effect, " That, Providence ought to spare him, who had, in his laborous career, suffered so much already, and who had relieved the sufferings of so many of his fellow beings," he replied, "Me, wherefore me? every one in this world works according to the gifts and capabilities which he receives from Heaven, and may receive more or less preference before the judgment seat of man, but none before that of Providence. Providence is indebted to me for nothing, but to Him I am indebted for much, yea, for every thing." Hahnemann, it is true, became rather obnoxious to a portion of his professional brethren; whether there was just ground for this, or on which side more of the fault belongs, is not for us to say. If he was ultra, it is no more than has been with others; if he was enthusiastic, it has generally been the case with those who have made great discoveries; if he gave all his energies during a long life to one idea, the world may be more benefitted than himself, for, as a general rule, the individual who pushes one subject in science, benefits the world more than himself; and Bishop Horne has well remarked, that " Truth is a guest that often brings those who entertain it into difficulty." The progress of Homoeopathy has for the last few years been extensive. Those in this country, and even every where, who are in the practice, are regular physicians, who have been for years in the practice of the old school, or have previously received the degree of M. D. Indeed the Homceopathic school are perhaps more strict than the other. It may be true that there are a few in this country who are not medically educated; but they are held as quacks, and have no fellowship with the Homoeopathic fraternity. In the city of New York, where Homoeopathy has been longer in progress than in this State, and has gained a reputable standing in society, and has brought into the ranks many of the ablest medical men in the country, where it has ceased to be looked upon as a humbug,-unless by those who have set their faces against it, and are determined "not to believe any truth till they examine it, nor to examine any thing till they believe it,"-but one of about forty practitioners but is a regular physician, and generally members of the medical societies. So in other places. Still there are prejudices anddifficulties to the mind of candid men. They cannot believe. Well, no man can believe without some kind of evidence': the kind of' evidence necessary to convince the mind of any truth will depend upon the nature of the subject. There are certain truths which can never be proved by mathemat 25 ical demonstration, the nature of the subject forbids it; the only evidence which we can have to convince the mind upon such subjects, is moral probability. This is the kind of evidence which often applies in theology, in law, and sometimes in medicines; on other subjects actual demonstration is necessary; facts, and facts too that cannot be contradicted; and still when we see such facts, if they are contrary to our preconceived opinions, it is no new thing to reject them, especially if we do not find it explained in some of the schools. New discoveries have always been looked upon with distrust, especially by the older class of philosophers. 11I have searched Aristotle through," said the Abbe to &cheiner, "66and find nothing of the kind mentioned; be assured that all the spots on the sun are a deception of your senses or your glasses." An argument not unlike this is sometimes considered conclusive at the present time. The amount of evidence necessary to convince the Mind of truth, depends much upon the individual; upon the mental constitution, so to speak. There are some individuals in every community who are convinced by a small amount of evidence, and sometimes will admit that which is not evidence in reality, and are hence led to embrace truth early when presented to the mind; if they admit testimony which should be "1ruled out," as the lawyers say, they will be very liable to form erroneous conclusions, will believe what is not true, they are credulous; on the other hand it requires a great amount of testimony to convince another, but if the testimony is sufficient, he will believe; such individuals are naturally sceptical. Now it is not true that a sceptical man is always the last to believe new truths, nor vice versa; he may have the evidence by being thrown into circumstances favorable, and be convinced early, but will require a large amount to convince him, while the credulous may still disbelieve this same truth, from having met little or no evidence of it. So that, the early belief of truth, is of itself no evidence of credulity. Some are convinced soon of Homoeopathy, from witnessing its effects, some too soon, while many of those who have been in the practice of it for many years, are of the sceptical class; and the testimony both of themselves and others, shows that they were a long time in being convinced. It is generally held to be a mark of a strong mind to be sceptical; and hence a man who denie -s the doctrine of experimental religion, is sometimes considered mighty in intellect, while the credulous are considered weak minded. The truth is, that an inability to judge and rightly discriminate in the admission of evidence, shows a mind at fault, whether it admits much or little; that mind has the best -balance, which is best capable of judging 4 what is evidence and what is not, what is truth and what is error. I hold that it is as much evidence of faulty judgment, of a want of discrimination to disbelieve what is true as to believe what is erroneous. It is very important in the investigation of new and difficult subjects to admit that, and that only, which really is evidence; and upon this subject we should take the same ground as upon any other, giving prominence first, to real facts which we have seen, and secondly to the testimony of other men. It is sometimes said upon this subject that we must take nothing upon trust; now the testimony of others is sometimes more conclusive than our own. I may witness the effect of a certain medicine a thousand times, which being uniform wrould be sufficient to convince me, but still there might be a defect in my senses. Now if I had seen the same thing but one hundred times, and ten others, who were capable and honest, had done the same, and their testimony all tended to confirm my own, the evidence would be more conclusive. In this way, and in this only, are we to depend on the testimony of others. The conclusions to which I have arrived in the investigation of this subject, I contend is substantiated by proof, and that upon the above principle. No mere human reasoning will convince a man that medicine will operate on the Homoeopathic principle, in the Homoeopathic dose, in any case,-nor will we ever know the effect of any medicine upon the system, but from experience in the first place; in this way all our real knowledge is derived. But there is a difficulty in the minds of medical men, and which is greater than in the minds 'of the public who care little for explanations, if they can only feel better when they are sick. It is so different from the long established principles and practice, that if you begin by stating, that medicine operates thus and so, they will reply that it is a very fine theory, but there are no facts to sustain it. If you begin with the facts, and no matter how they accumulate, they reply, they cannot believe them; medicine cannot operate in this manner. The Homoeopathic school care little- for theory; and there is a point on all subjects where our explanations must cease, facts are the main thing; they are the basis of all true science; and an explanation of these facts so far as can be done, is the only true theory; all other is mere hypothesis which amounts to nothing. But it will be claimed, I presume, that no one is desirous of retarding the progress of true science, or of creating any barrier to real improvements in medicine; but admitting the truth of the doctrines of the Homoeopathic school, when fully carried out, it is said will at least lead to a form of medical radicalism, for it would conflict with long established truths 27 and principles, do away virtually with what we know to be absolutely necessary, and if carried out would prove most disastrous. This objection, if founded in reality, instead of imagination, would be an insuperable one, and as it is, requires an argument; and in order to carry out our views, we shall be obliged to bring comparisons and anologies. We shall then, maintaining the general doctrines of Homoeopathy to be true in principle and applicable in practice, claim that when properly understood and applied, it is exempt from the charge. We are no radicals, either in medicine, in politics, or in morals. We hold that it is utterly impossible in the nature of things, for one new truth, or discovery in science, to displace a fundamental law; the laws of nature, which are fixed and unchangable, are not altered by new discoveries; if our discoveries change our views of those laws, as did those of Gallileo, it only proves that our previous notions were incorrect, and ought to be changed; if it annihilates our views of truth, it is certain that our views were not well founded, although the truth might remain; we do not hold, in a progressive science, our knowledge to be anything more than probable truth; a substance in chemistry which we hold as simple to day, may to-morrow be discovered to be compound; and hence the philosopher should be ever ready to change his opinions in this sense. So in medical science; we hold a medicine has such an effect in the present state of our knowledge, that at some future time it may be discovered that it has other effects; these effects are not absolute and immutable; so in regard to disease. We therefore, in adopting new views, and giving up old ones, act on the principle of the manufacturer, who invents a new machine which is more perfect, and produces a certain article, in a more simple and complete manner. Now he does not lay aside the old machine because it was all wrong, nor because it had not answered the purpose for which it had been used; it had done so, less perfectly, it is true; now he adopts the new one because it is an improvement; and it is on this principle that improvements in the different departments of medicine and surgery are adopted. We give medicine on the Homceopathic principle, because it on the whole is an improvement, not claiming but that the old system has done good, or we could do no good with it now. We hold that the physician is bound to use the best means in his power; and further, that he is bound under an obligation superior to all human laws, to know all that can reasonably be demanded; to fail of either we hold to be quackery. If I am cast upon an island where the inhabitants are suffering from a severe disease, one half of the cases proving fatal, 28 and even with their rude remedies I can save three-fourths by better application of them, I am bound to do it. Now if a vessel arrives with more efficient remedies, so that I can by them save nine-tenths, I am bound to discontinue the former practice and adopt the new; and I am a quack, to all intents and purposes, if I refuse. We have no moral right to continue in an old custom because our fathers did. Interest prompts to a change in adopting improvements in the arts, but in medicine as in law; interest is the other way, and therefore moral principle should impel us to do it. Homceopathy lends no sanction to any form of radicalism. There may be such a.thing in medicine as well as in politics and religion. There are two kinds of radicalism. 1st. That which advocates the doing away with those laws, usages, institutions, or precepts which are not only absolutely necessary now, but which iwill ever continue to be. They are of perpetual value, and of perpetual obligation. This form is seen more in social life, and in morals. 2d. That which aims at those institutions and customs which are necessary for the time being, but which become useless by a change of circumstances. To discard these, before they become useless, or before a better system can be substituted, is the more ordinary radicalism of the day. Any doctrine in medicine which tends to this point, Homceopathy does not sanction, until it changes the circumstances so as to render the system better,-if, for example, it dispenses with harsh drastic medicine, and substitutes in its place that which is gentle in its operation, it does it by affecting the object to be accomplished, the cure of disease, without the necessity of these; just as we supersede the necessity of amputating a limb, by a cure of the disease by medicine. Now there are cases where amputation is necessary, and probably always will be; it would be radicalism to denounce that operation as unnecessary; in other cases, where once thought necessary, we are able to cure without; and amputation is abolished in this case as a matter of course, and it would be quackery to continue it. The same may be said of blood letting, drastic cathartics, emetics, blisters, &c. These are all considered evils in themselves, but necessary in the circumstances of the case, in Allopathic practice, to prevent most disastrous consequences. Now if the application of medicine on the Homceopathic principle will substitute some more gentle, and yet efficient means of relief in its place, it is not radicalism, but the height of science to do so. That this has been the case, the history of medical science fully shows. Many severe operations, and disgusting medicine, of former ages, are now displaced bymore scientific, 29 appropriate, and agreeable means of relief; and it is not too much to expect still further progress. So that we hold that many things supposed to be necessary in medicine, and indeed absolutely necessary in ordinary practice, become obsolete, as it were, by the more direct and enlightened system of SHomceopathy. There is an analogy in social and civil life, and in the progress of society as regards morals; and the same remarks are applicable. There are certain institutions necessary in certain periods of the world, and applicable to certain states of society, which, when society becomes improved, become unnecessary. In one period, war for example, is absolutely necessary, and government could not be maintained without a standing army-both reason and experience prove this; and if war is necessary, all its accompaniments are necessary, as armories and arms, armies and navies; now it would be radicalism to denounce any of these, till mankind have learned to settle differences, according to the principles of reason and justice; and when so far as this is done, the implements of war are superseded, by a system of more enlightened justice and humanity. The same is true on other subjects; moral improvement supersedes the necessity of punishment-but we must have the improvement first. There will be no necessity to legislate to abolish systems, if we can bring means to bear, which will effectually prevent the community from coming within their reach; they are then abolished of course. We hold the same rule in medicine to be philosophical and correct. So long as it is necessary to use the surgeon's knife, it should be done scientifically; so long as it is necessary to destroy human life by war, it should be done scientifically; so long as it is necessary to take the life of the murderer, it should be done scientifically; to such an extent as we are\ obliged to use the shops of the apothecary, the more scientific the better; but as they are all rather a "' bad business at the best," the progress of science, and of moral truth, will sooner or later affect them all in the same way; they will become less essential. Now on this principle, and on this only, does Homoeopathy, when rightly construed, interfere with any of our established principles or practice. Good medicine interferes with surgery, and medicine dealers, (but more especially would it affect the herd of nostrum mongers and quacks of every kind,) just as good morals affect the lawyers, and officers of justice-it deprives them of a great amount of their business. As there are changes in the social, civil, and moral condition of mankind from one time to another, the same is true as respects their physical state. It is well known by all 30 medical men, and some others, that diseases vary at dilierent periods, not only as affected by epidemic influences and local causes, but as regards the susceptibility of the system to diseased action. It is well established, that the savage tribes, and those nations who are not cultivated, are affected differently by diseases; their diseases are more strictly physical, and affecting more especially the different tissues of the body. As society progresses, and the intellect is more developed, and applied in the ordinary callings of life, we have more of the mental or nervous temperament; diseases in-such society assume more of the nervous type-this is especially the case in refined and cultivated states of society, and is becoming more and more so-hence so great a variety of those derangements of the vital forces, assuming different forms of nervous affection which we find among literary men, and which are in general so little affected by ordinary medical treatment. There is frequently little or no disturbance of many of the functions except the nervous, and they cannot bear drastic treatment-and hence physicians are very glad to get them off to 1" the Springs," or on a tour to Europe, for the benefit of their health, or they are sometimes "1treated well enough by Homceopathy." Now this practice has been eminently successful in diseases of this character, because better adapted to their cases; and hence, unlike other forms of quackery, which generally is adopted by the ignorant, it has been styled " The refined and polite system, of quackery of the present day"-that it is the quackery of "the drawing room" that gulls the " upper ten thousand," &c. It is sometimes imagined that the Homoeopathic diet and regimen do all toward a cure. Now there is less difference than is supposed between the two schools on this point-indeed, in acute diseases, they must be the same, where the desire for food is suspended; here it certainly cannot be the diet. In chronic cases, while taking medicine, it is true, certain medicinal substances, as tea, coffee, condiments, &c. are prohibited, and a general nourishing diet is directed;-there is no starvation system, but every circumstance is taken into consideration, and diet is directed accordingly, as every enlightened and scientific physician should do. It is sometimes said that the Homoeopathic school, if they happen to have a severe case, give full doses of medicine, calomel as a cathartic; and there is considerable hue and cry in and out of the profession in regard to this subject. A cathartic is supposed to be necessary, a white powder is given, and the difficulty is relieved. Calomel is white powder, and is cathartic, so they give calomel. And so of other medicines-to what extent this is done 31 each one must answer for himself--but suppose even it should be. Suppose it should happen that for some reason, either from want of skill, or a mistake in the case, or from mechanical or local obstruction, or otherwise, a cathartic should be given, and be considered as a necessary misfortune; or suppose that in spite of the operation of all medicine, the disease should progress till disorganization should take place, and the knife should become necessary, to separate the dead member to save the body, on the same principle that we separate an individual who has become dead to the community from crime, to save society, where is the harm? If the Homoeopathic physician does not do it, the surgeon must; and some of the Homoeopathic school are operative surgeons. Nor is there any inconsistency in all this, when philosophically considered. We are sometimes alarmed at what we do not understand; the ignorant have been often terrified at an eclipse, but the philosopher never. The Homoeopathic school consider it a misfortune to be obliged to give a general or mechanical remedy, just as the physician considers it a misfortune to use the knife, rather than cure the disease with medicine. A distinguished physician in one of our cities, who has practised the Homoeopathic system six years, after an extensive Allopathic practice of ten or twelve years, said to me on this point, " I, six years ago, sold out my old stock of medicine, being convinced that I could treat disease more successfully on the Homoeopathic principle. I, however, retained my vial of calomel, supposing I should be obliged to use a dose occasionally, at least for a time; but," said he, " I have been in practice six years, treated all diseases as before, such as Lung Fever, Scarlet Fever, Dysentery, Croup, &c. &c. and there the vial stands; I have not been necessitated to use a dose, nor do I know how soon I shall-I have succeeded without, when I cannot I shall use it." This is the principle; is it consistent, or is it not? There is also some alarm for fear that the " little doses will not be small enough"-that they will give even as much as the fraction of a drop; then they are no Homoeopaths. Now that there is some difference of opinion in regard to doses, in the Homoeopathic school, is not denied-so is the fact in the Allopathic, full as much difference, and there probably always will be a difference to some extent; but this is a matter which can be settled only by experience; no arbitrary rules can be laid down, and it had better be settled by those who are best competent to judge-the physicians of each school, and the opposite school, and the public mind, need be very little disturbed on that point. An objection has been urged by our Allopathic brethren that Homoepathy 32 is a distinct school, which looks quackish; now this is to a certain extent the case, both in Europe and America-but where is the fault? Did Hahnemann separate from his brethren, or they from him? How is it in this country? In Philadelphia the medical society have passed resolutions declaring Homoeopathy quackery. So in some of the counties in New York. Can they blame that school for forming societies for the improvement of medical science? In many places no one can be known as a Homoeopathic physician, by any thing except the form of his medicine; and hence it is perhaps the practical difference more than any thing else, which may render it necessary to a certain extent, to keep up a distinction. It is found, that divisions in society are founded either on differences in fundamental principlcs or in practice; there would, we must readily conceive, be a difficulty in a practical union, as there is an essential difference in the practical application of the medicine to the disease. Still, on most of the great fundamental principles of medical science, there may be an agreement; and we would adopt the maxim, "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." It has been said that when a physician adopts the Homoeopathic principle, he begins to denounce his brethren, and this is quackery. The Homaepath, if he acts from principle, is satisfied that the practice is superior; still, it is denounced as quackery, and not worthy of investigation, which may sometimes excite the blood a little, it is true, in those who have critically examined the subject; but still we hold that charity is a very necessary virtue-denunciation amounts to nothing; men must be convinced of the truth upon any subject, by enlightening the understanding, and although we believe in using strong arguments against any thing which we do not hold to be the best, in the circumstances of the case, still it should be done in candor. These, then, are a few of the many reasons which we might adduce, to show why we admit the truth of the essential points, in the Homoeopathic principle in medicine; a conclusion to which we have not hastily arrived; to which we have come by no "6 royal road;" by no remarkable cases, nor by any excitement of the imagination, but from a careful, laborious, and critical examination of medical science generally, both in practice and in principle, and looking impartially upon the subject in every aspect in which it can be presented, and seriously answering the question, what is truth? we do not adopt it as a perfect system, as one which will entirely relieve the profession from making further and continual researches as to the causes and nature of diseases, and the effect of means for their preven 33 tion and cure-but as a principle, which, when correctly understood and rightly appreciated, will do something, yea, much, toward farther elevating the physical evils to which the human race are liable. 5 APPENDIX. WE shall add, more especially to confirm the observations which have been made, some cases, which were among our first in the application of the Homceopathic practice in the cure of disease; they are designed, as are the remarks which follow, more especially for the medical profession, but may not be without interest to the general reader. The few selected are of no particular interest, only going to show that the early application of medicine on this principle is not without success. Still further observation and experience are necessary, to prescribe with accuracy. I trust what has already been said, will be sufficient to convince any one who is not familiar with the Homoeopathic literature, even of our own country, that the medicine is not inoperative. A recent interview with a physician of several years' experience, in a region where the science has made great progress, more than confirms all we shall say. In the country, and in acute diseases, we have a better opportunity to compare the two systems. In Epidemics of malignant Erysipelas, Typhus Fever, and Scarlet Fever, which had recently occured, the success was much in favor of the Homoeopathic practice. Indeed, it is decidedly in diseases of a violent character, that its success is pre-eminent. CASE 1-.A child, hged 18 months, had cutaneous eruption of eight or ten days' standing, covering the face, neck, and upper portion of the chest. The case answered to those -caused or cured by sulphur. Gave flos sulphur three times a day; at the end of two days' it entirely disappeared; had I given a cathartic I should have said it cured it by correcting the alimentary canal or by revulsive action; took probably in all 1-2 gr. finely triturated with sugar. Is it a stretch of the imagination to say it produced its specific stimuli upon the nerves or capillaries of the skin? CASE 2.--E.A., aged 2 years. Measles. Attacked on Friday-on Tuesday A. M. following, eruption appeared-saw it on Wednesday, A. M., high fever, cough severe, eruption on the upper extremities, &c.-Thursday, fever less, eruption had covered the surface and began to abate.-Friday, 36 she was up, and Saturday her skin was clear, cough lesstook belladonna and bryonia. Measles will get well with no treatment. In this case, had I given other medicine, should have said it did well. It progressed much more speedily, though more severe at first, than her sister, who had no medical advice, and left her free from cough, &c. CASE 3.-Mr. A. was attacked with ordinary symptoms of fever-at night had chills followed with fever-through the night severe pain in the head, back, extremities, &c. At 4 P. M. saw him, skin hot and dry, face red, thirst and restlessness, pulse 100, hard and full, soreness at the stomach severegave aconite, 1st dilution every hour. Next day, 8 A. M., rested some latter part of the night, and perspired freely-relieved from pain except in the head-soreness much relieved--pulse the same, continue medicine-4 P. M. had a slight rise of fever at noon, but feels better on the whole -free from pain, skin moist, pulse soft, bad taste in the mouth, tongue coated, feels, weak, &c.; continue aconite every four hours with nux vomica-9 A. M., rested well, free from pain, sweats, mouth clear, pulse soft, bowels move freely; feels nearly well, except debility; walks out and gained rapidly. CASE 4.-Mrs. R. was taken in church, about 7 P. M. with severe neuralgia, arising from decayed teeth; she had an attack a week previous less severe, which lasted three days. -the pain was excruciating; saw her at ten, gave her belladonna every hour; after three or four doses it was entirely relieved, and the relief was permanent; the pain extended to the ear and covered a considerable portion of one side of the head. CASE 5.-Miss R., aged 11 years. Eneuresis of several years' standing, affected as often as three out of four nights, otherwise well; gave pulsatilla night atd morning; she was relieved the first day; the medicine was continued one or two weeks, but as there was no return it was discontinued. Was it accidental, or did the infinitesmal dose hit the infinitesmal nervous febril which was in fault? CASE 6.-An aged lady had been affected with cough for two or three weeks. It had been severe at first, rather dry, and had impaired her general health. There was an entire loss of appetite, debility, severe cough, especially at night. The first prescription rather changed the nature of the cough with some relief; it was continued two or three days, but still the symptoms were distressing, cough spasmodic, especially at night, nausea, pale, dejected countenance, coldness of the surface, and a train of symptoms which indicated arsenic as a remedy. She took at noon a dose of 37 the third attenuation, to be repeated every six hours, That night she was free from cough, rested well, and next day was entirely relieved; felt nearly well except some debility; the cure was effectual and permanent; she took the medicine for a few days only. [NOTE.-In this case there was a very speedy effect, but such as is often seen, the primary difficulty being removed, all the consecutive symptoms disappear, and the healthy vital action is resumed; it is on this principle that this article is a powerful tonic; but the condition must be appropriate or we shall fail of obtaining its effects.] CASE 7.-S. H., aged 9 years, had been feeble at times for years, and I had treated her for about four months with apparent benefit for a time, but with no permanent cure. She was also seen several times by other respectable physicians, but who gave her little encouragement of a permanent cure; she was of a decidedly scrofulous diathesis, and had a complicated, though variable, train of symptoms. I concluded to try Hom. in the case. When I commenced, the prominent symptoms were as follows: Severe seated pain in the head, and irregular pains in the back, and extremities severe at times, especially at night; she had little rest, griping pains in the bowels, which were distended and irregular, averaging ten to twelve movements per day; variable in appearance, nausea, variable appetite; pulse about one hundred, and a variety of secondary symptoms too numerous to mention; she was not able to sit up all day. This had been her condition, say four to five months. She was put upon arsenic for two or three weeks, also nux vomica, in Homoeopathic doses; used nothing else. In two or three weeks most of her prominent symptoms were relieved, and in five or six weeks she was completely well, and left off medicine. She has continued well. CASE 8.-Mrs. G. Was called to visit on Thursday, May 10th, at 10 o'clock, A. M. She had been taken the afternoon previous with severe pain in the lower portion of the abdomen, which had continued with increasing severity. She had the evening previous to my seeing her, taken a dose of Lee's pills, which had about three o'clock produced several thorough cathartic operations. Flannels wet in a decoction of herbs had been kept applied to the parts affected, &c.; after the cathartic operation there was a slight abatement of the pains, and she slept nearly two hours; all the sleep she obtained through the night. I found her at 10 with increasing local pain (cystitis) extending over the lower portion of the abdomen, with great tenderness on pressure, pain from any movement, general restlessness and fever, tongue white, 38 pulse 125, though not full or strong. I directed the fomentations to be continued, with simple warm water, cool drinks, and pulsatilla (Hom. dose.) At 2 P. M. was sent for; there was no relief, all the symptoms were aggravated; pulse about the same, but rather fluttering; spasms and vomiting from the severe irritation; soreness increased and suffering almost intolerable; gave cantharides 5 drops, first dilution in one-third tumbler of water, gave a teaspoonful at 2; in about ten minutes she vomited; in half an hour repeated the dose; at 3 I noticed she began to cease her groans, and at half past 3 she was comparatively easy and disposed to sleep; I left her, directing to give a teaspoonfull of the mixture every hour; 8 P. M. found her quiet, in a free perspiration; had no severe pain since I left, could move with less suffering, vomiting checked, pulse 100, soreness about the same. Friday, 16th, 8 A. M., she had a tolerable night, pain slight, soreness less but extending up the right side toward the liver, (probably in the ureter,) pulse 90, mouth dry and bitter, continue cantharides every 4 hours; considering the state of the stomach and bowels, gave nux vomica every four hours alternatively. 6 P. M., about the same, with rather an increase of fever, pulse about 95, face flushed, &c. though but little pain; continued medicine. Saturday, 17th.-Slept very well, bowels moved freely twice, griping after taking the nux vomica; soreness much less, mostly in the side or ureter; tongue looks better, skin cool, pulse 80; can help herself much better; urine more natural, and less pain in voiding it; continue cantharides every four hours. Improved rapidly. CASE 9.-Mr. P. aged 17 years. On the 5th of June I was requested by Dr. S. of this city, to see a patient that he considered in a critical situation; visit at 7 P. M. Was taken Sunday, 1st inst., in the P. M. at church, with a chill followed with faintness, &c.; had not felt well a day or two previous; on Monday and Tuesday he became worse with domestic remedies; on Tuesday evening Dr. S. was called to visit him, found him with high fever, cough, pain in the chest, &c. He was treated Horn.; two days after I saw and examined the patient, he said he felt better than in the morning; Dr. S. thought him better in some respects-I examined him and concurred with Dr. S. that it was decided pneumonitis; his pulse was 112, rather full and hard, respiration very laborious and 48 per minute, pain in the region of the heart and through the right!ung, tongue coated and tip red, bowels free, countenance dejected, face pale, though flushed at intervals. On examining the chest on the left side, the respiratory sound was preternaturally distinct, 39 and also on the upper portion of the right; but the whole of the lower portion of the right lobe was completely engorged; not the least respiratory murmur was audible, and it was dull on percussion; cough severe, expectoration mixed with blood and considerable in quantity. Friday, 6th.-Rested very well and sweat freely; skin was now moist, pulse 85 and more soft, respiration 32, bowels have not moved, tongue begins to clean, fever much less, respiration much better; continued medicine. In the engorged portion of the right lung there could be heard a slight crepitus, indicating a return of the air through it; less dullness on percussion. Saturday, 7th.-Slept well, skin cool, cough and expectoration less, still tinged with blood, pulse 60, full and regular, respiration 21, more easy, little pain; examined chest-the engorged portion of the lung continues rather more crepitus. Sunday, 8th.-Slept well, free from pain; slight soreness in the lower portion of the right lung, little cough, expectoration mucous, slightly streaked with blood, skin cool, bowels had not moved for two days, pulse 55, regular and strong (ind. torpor or congestion,) respiration 21, free and easy, right lung slightly crepitus. Monday.-Still better, slept well, free from pain, one natural movement, pulse 60, rises to 75 on erect posture, respiration 20, natural; coughs but five or six times in 24 hours, raises a little phlegm, slightly tinged with blood, chest more natural, air passes through the lungs, tongue clean, countenance better, able to walk across the room and sit up some, appetite moderate, little loss of flesh. This case was treated Homceopathically, strictly, unless 3 drachms C. oil be considered an exception; aconite, bryonia, phosphorus, &c. were the main remedies. This case, one of decided Pneumonia, is one of interest, and shows conclusively that there is another advance of medical science. The immediate cessation of inflammatory action and the change of symptoms while there was pulmonary engorgement, led me to fear fatal congestion, especially as the expectoration nearly ceased instead of becoming purulent and copious as in the latter favorable cases of Pneumonia on the ordinary treatment. I consider the termination of this case analogous to that of inflammation by resolution or the healing of an incised wound by the first intention, instead of suppuration and granulation, and the attending phenomena all corresponding. It is held by our Allopathic brethren, that the small doses cannot produce the effect which is attributed to them; now one difficulty in the mind is, they immediately go comparing them with ten grains of calomel, or 30 drops laudanum, which 40 is, they say, not sufficient in many cases. Now each school is right in the explanation of the operation of medicine on their own system, but they differ in applying the means of relief to opposite ends of the difficulty, as we shall soon show. It is well known there are different views in regard to the proximate cause of disease or diseased action. The two main divisions for the last many years, are the fluidists and solidists; each contending that the seat of disease is primarily in the fluids or solids. Now these two schools have been like two pugillists, about equally matched, one for a time seeming to gain the advantage, and then his antagonist, excited as it were by defeat, has aroused his energies and again becomes in the ascendant; fluidism was formerly in vogue, then was nearly displaced by the solidists: but for the last few years is rising again, and is now "above par," as will be seen from nearly all who dare venture an opinion. Now the truth is, that one is as near right as the other; in some cases the fluids are diseased before the solids, and in others the solids before the fluids, and in many cases neither are diseased at all. The fact is, whether the fluids or the solids, or both, as is often the case, are diseased, it is secondary; an effect in most cases, and probably in all, of some previous morbid action-some change in the vital forces, or nervous influence. Now we have a class of vitalists, it is true. I am the same now I have ever been, a vitalist; and the vitalists and the Homacopathic school are one and the same to begin with; and there is much less difference between Prof. Paine, of New York, and Prof. Bartlett, of Baltimore, and Hahnemann, than they really suppose. They separate on account of the latter, considering disease to exist in a dynamicform, and may have long and seriously operated before there is any perceptible change, or any pathological condition; while the former gentlemen do not admit much diseased action till there is something which they can put their scalpel upon, or separate from the blood as a foreign substance; and hence they finally, in practice, become incorporated with one or other of the above schools. But it certainly is true, that in a great variety of diseases, especially in the Neurotica, that the disease originates in some change in the vital forces or nervous fluid, whether it is electric or not; in many diseases, even death occurs, and the most minute examination will detect no structural change, even with glasses; and should the system be divided into infinitesmal particles, it is doubtful whether any could be seen. What is it that produces pain, especially that which is purely nervous; that destroys life even, in many cases of sudden joy or grief; that produces a great number 41 of the spasmodic diseases? unquestionably a small change or a want of action in a nerve often is the moving difficulty, in many general and local diseases. The phenomena of fever and of inflammation are such, as to lead us to believe that diseased action begins in the nervous system. In most cases, as in fever, the early phenomena are decidedly those of abnormal, nervous action, or if produced by an external cause, it is here manifested; hence the premonitory stage of languor and lassitude, followed by a chill, indicating a depressed or deranged vitality, followed by spasm of the extreme vessels of Cullen, and of course dryness and heat of surface, (fever.) Now pain from congestion; soon the secretions become disturbed, connected with the nutritive functions, and the individual is now sick; the more the disease progresses the more prominent are the symptoms, till disorganization may take place, especially if the disease locate. Now the phenomena of local inflammation is similar on a small scale. The late writers on this subject and microscopic observations, tend to confirm the Homceopathic doctrine, and remove some of the ridicule which is attached to small doses. In inflammation the first observation by the microscope, shows that in the capillary vessels, the fluids begin to move slowly; (what makes them?) soon there is congestion, then the red blood is stopped, large vessels are obstructed, redness, pain, heat, and swelling fobllow in their order. Now for the cure; Allopathy begins where the diseased action ends; there is congestion, general or local; bleeding is used, then blisters, &c.; or give alterative medicine, in either case it will be indirect, and large quantities will be required, and the cure gradual. It is now held that the loss of blood does not cure, but change the condition; does not diminish the fibrin any more than the other portions, but is necessary to cure by alteratives, antiphlogistics, or specific stimuli. Now Homonopathy applies a remedy not to the same end, as it were, but the opposite; commencing at the point where the congestion begins, and for ought we know, the first dose restores the tone of a nerve which was at fault, that may be a small point; now there is power to remove diseased action as well as to allow it to progress; the medicine is often repeated, and the congested vessels resume their action, and resolution takes place. Now if the inflammation is removed as soon or sooner than by the other treatment, it operates in some manner. That this is the way we do not pretend to say, but the facts are substantiated. Now we do know that if a specific stimulant is applied, the effect will be great. Now the remedy which is given must be one which will be specific to the point, and to the condition, or there will be no effect. Ah! but how 6 42 are you to find the remedy? Homeopathy has a rule which will apply often, perhaps a universal law, when rightly applied, based on " simillia similibus curantur," " the latin of which," says a late writer, " has made considerable impression on the public mind." True, but by the way I am not sure that it is exactly the latin which has " made the impression!" But it may be asked, what evidence, allowing certain facts do follow the Homceopathic medicine, that the medicine produces the effect? we answer, the same evidence that we have in any case of cause and effect; it must be established by cases sufficient to make the rule. In a case of local pain we give a dose of morphine: how does the morphine relieve the pain? if the pain is of the character to be relieved by morphine, and just the proper quantity, say one-eighth or one-fourth grain is given, it will relieve the pain and no other effect will be produced; the individual will not know from his feelings that he has taken any medicine, but from a cessation of pain. If the dose is too large, or more than just sufficient to meet the symptoms, he will have soife effects as from narcosis. l\ow in this case, while only the pain is met, is there any evidence that the effect of the morphine is expended on any portion of the nervous system except where there is functional lesion, till that lesion is restored? I judge not, for had there been no pain or lesion, the same dose would have produced sensible effect. Now in diseased states, especially in lesions of nervous function, probably the vital forces only are altered from health; and hence the reason why we see sudden effects and speedy cures, especially in certain diseases called nervous, rheumatic, &c., and hence quacks and quack medicines often cure accidentally; but in diseases where there is a change in the other tissues, all medicines will operate less speedily. In case No. 5, it is not to be presumed there was change of structure, perhaps a point of nervous fibre was in an abnormal condition, and when brought up to a certain degree of action, it failed to perform its office: now two doses of pulsatilla might have had more power to restore that function than ten doses of rhubarb. We shall find if we examine critically the medical literature of the day, a "dreadful squinting" toward Homoeopathy: it is unconscious however for the most part. but true, both in principle and practice; and the multitude of isolated facts, both recent and long known, prove it. Not long since in a journal, one-eighth of a drop of creosote cured nausea;.another thought it could not be, for it would produce vomiting! Ipecac cures it in some cases, antimony in some, tobacco in some, &c., in small doses; and we shall find that there are many examples 43 of the kind. The writers on materia medica are becoming less general and more specific, both as to the action of the medicine and its application to particular diseased conditions; compare Cullen with Pereira. There are many arguments in the writings of the old school which were written to demolish Hommopathy, which have done it essential service. Dr. Alexander Walker, an English Allopathic writer, has given one. He holds that in every disease there are two sets of symptoms, morbid and curative: the former are produced by the cause of the disease directly, and should be treated by opposite means, and in large doses; the second are the efforts of nature, endeavoring to recover itself: these are to be treated by similar means, and in small doses. After all, what he means by morbid symptoms, is substantially what Homoeopathy means by removing the cause. Dr. Elisha Bartlett has given Homoeopathy a chapter in his " philosophy of medical science," alongside of Cullenism, and Brownism, and Rushism, and Gallapism, and Broussaisism, and concludes that it is about as reasonable, and will last about as long as these. He however would believe all the Homeopathic doctrine, says " the infinitesmal doses would be no objection at all, if Hahnemann had not assumed everything." Now Dr. B. has read Hahnemann closely, and has given a better account of his doctrine than most men who have written against it; but what the Homoeopathic school have proved from experiment, during half a century, he from reading in his closet, assumes that they assume, that is, do just as he does. The works above mentioned are worth reading, as arguments for Homoeopathy, as is almost every thing which happens to have any thing to do with therapeutics; and if we take the trouble to examine, we shall find much to convince us of the truth of the Homoeopathic principle. In those cases in which specific remedies or alteratives are used, we shall find if they were given less at random, they would be given with more effect, and their effect would not depend so much on the dose. Mercury, for example, if given in high fever, in small doses, so long as the pure entonic action exists, we have little expectation of obtaining the specific effect of the medicine, even if given for weeks, nor does it reduce the fever; but if done, by other means, to a certain point, especially if at the same time there are peculiar symptoms, such as sometimes are produced by mercury, we shall see decided effects from it, it then becomes Homoeopathic. In these cases there is much relief as soon as the effect is produced, but it is as speedy sometimes from antimony, in its proper cases,'from ammonia or from arsenic, which every physician 44 may see not in the same conditions, but in their appropriate states. As has long been held in most cases, that the specific effects of mercury may be obtained short of ultimate salivation; hence the doctrine and practice of Abernethy and others. It will be found in practice, if we critically examine, that many cases, which we long remember, of the extraordinary effects of medicine, this principle is acted upon. For the last 10 or 12 years, a preparation of iodide of mercury, combined with hyod. potass, has been used by the profession. A Homoeopathic preparation,-we gave it 10 years ago, in a case of bronchial affection, which had resisted every thing-the effect was'soon perceptible, and the cure from that time rapid. In another case, where there was great emaciation, expectoration to the amount of a pint per day, the cure was speedy. In these cases it was supposed to be powerful enough, so long as the effect was so decidedly apparent. In one of the county societies, in this State, a few years since, the subject of curing certain diseases by Tinct. Balladonna, in one drop doses, was discussed; several cases were substantiated by distinguished physicians, especially one which we shall never forget, where the cure was speedy after resisting other modes;-if organized Homoeopathy had made no progress, the profession might have made more progress in such investigations; but like two combatants, they have no idea of coming into position to shake hands. The Deobstruent and Narcotic practice, which is so general in Connecticut, is essentially on the Homoeopathic principle; and although it has not been applied on their rule, and consequently has been more at random, and somewhat ultra, it has modified the general practice. Now it will be found that in many of these cases, (especially those most successful,) the medicine will produce similar effects, when given in poisonous quantities, to those cured by small; if exactness was observed, smaller doses would succeed.Most medicines, probably, first produce a general effect, especially those, the action of which is especially manifested upon the nervous system; if carried beyond this, or articles of another kind are used, their action will be on some special organ or tisue-this is well known. Aloes, if given sufficiently, will act on the lower portion of the alimentary canal;--antimony, on the mucous membrane of the stomach and lungs,-cantharides, on other parts of the same membrane; if injected into the blood vessels the specific effect is the same. Some of the narcotics effect especially the head, as belladonna and opium, others, some portions of the s. chord and ganglionic system, as strychnos nux vomica. Is it impossible that there may be remedies which effect es 45 pecially the capillary system? These things are taken into consideration by the Homoeopathic school,-especially is this held to be necessary where disease locates in a particular tissue. That such medicine as acts specifically upon such tissues is more effectual, is very evident. In regard to a small dose producing effect, and articles becoming medicinal by minute division, is not after all, so incredible, when philosophically considered, and based upon facts. We all know that mercury, in its crude or metallic state, is not medicinal; so of lead. These act only mechanically; now, if mercury is rubbed down, as in mass. hydg. what is its effect? and were it divided still farther, it would be still more powerful, and it is now held to be a mere division instead of an oxyde. (See U. S. Dispensatory.) Now much ridicule has been attached to the notions of Hahnemann, in regard to dissolving and using silex., "which is neither soluble nor medicinal" as is said; now, if mercury becomes medicinal by division or even oxydation, why may not silex.? and we have in a late number of the " American Journal of Science and Arts," a learned article, showing the solubility of silex, by a heating process, very similar to that recommended by Hahnemann some thirty years ago. It is not at all improbable that a great part of the medicine when given in a coarse form, passes through only the larger vessels, even when taken into the secretions, and acts therefore, only indirectly, just as cathartics act on the alimentary canal, curing distant diseases by a revulsive action,-if so, more minute division by bringing the particles more directly in contact with diseased parts, may do more in small doses, by acting directly. Some late microscopic observations have rendered this more probable than we have heretofore imagined. It is well known and admitted on all hands, that in a great proportion of the diseases to which the physician is called, he endeavors to make the treatment as direct as possible. The treatment may be narcotic, tonic, alerative, &c. There are some remedies which it would be difficult to say exactly where they belong; take for example iodide potass-the fashionable remedy of the day, one which is extolled very highly, and still is found much fault with, and for what is it used? One gives it in the early stage of typhus, another later; one as a tonic, another as an antiphlogistic, or alterative, or expectorant, &c. Indeed, it is applicable to a great variety of diseases, and if given in particular conditions is a most efficient remedy. It is given too empyrically. How do tonics operate? by doing much more than to so change the action of the parts concerned in digestion, assimilation, and nutrition, as actually to make red blood out of real nutri 46 ment? This doctrine has long been held as probable by Eberle and others; hence iodine, arsenic, nitrate silver, ammonia, nux vomica, &c. &c., are called tonics. They are in one sense; if given in appropriate cases, there is much increase of vigor and strength, in the functions of the system, if at the same time we give more nutriment, or the same is better assimilated, and still all these articles are considered " very debilitating, and great caution is necessary in their use." All very true; they will all be so if not properly given, or if given in excessive quantities-and if watched through all their phases, will often produce symptons or conditions in large doses, similar to those which they relieve in small. The profession to adduce arguments for or against real Homoeopathy, need to be critical to meet the point at issue, instead of aiming their artillery at nonessential mysticism, or dust which should be floating around it, or because some visionist or enthusiast has happened to fall in with it. We are too apt, on a superficial view of things, to see resemblances where none really exist; like distant objects, which to the eye resemble each other, but on close inspection we observe an essential difference. Our professional brethren have in this way been led often honestly, no doubt, to associate Homeopathy with many of the systems of imposture which have from time to time prevailed. It sounds like Hydropathy; seems like some of the isms present or past, as Thomsonism, Magnetism, Perkinsism; or it looks like the Faith Doctors, or Rain-water Doctors. or Cancer Doctors; or if a little more respectable, it is one of the exclusive systems of the day. A classification with the above has had a tendency to prejudice the community, to a certain extent, against the principles and practice of Homoeopathy. If there is no difference between them when seen at a distance, let us take a near view, examine on both sides all the resemblances and the differences, with an impartial and unprejudiced mind. The truth is, that it has no more resemblance to these systems, than the Christian religion has to the Gnosticism of the ancient heathen philosophy; and the man who, in this day, brings the comparisons, shows that it is done to produce a ridiculous effect, to prejudice the ignorant, but as is oftener the case, shows that he has no critical knowledge of the subject. The discoveries and investigations of Hahnemann and his followers, though not expected to be received into immediate favor universally, are destined to make a lasting impression, and like every new and valuable truth, come by degrees to be adopted. There are coincident circumstances 47 of proof of the Homcnopathic system. Samuel Thompson's system, although claiming to be an improvement, was not so in reality. In his main dogmas he hit upon those which had long been exploded, as his chemical and physiological view, &c.; hence his system compared with medical science, generally is a retrograde one, and from which all the departments of medical science are receding. Others make a sideway step. While Hahnemann stepped forward about half a century of his cotemporaries, and the recent investigation in the different collateral medical sciences, are all tending to confirm this. The discoveries in physiology, vital chemistry, pathology, the specific modus operandi of all medicinal agents, exactness in their application to disease, the simple or specific application of medicine, and consequently diminution of quantity, and the very general application of medicine on the similar principle. So that medical science in its various departments is more and more converging to the general principles of the Homceopathic school. This point no one can fail to see, who has any faculty at critical exposition of medical principles, and can look at facts as they really exist, and divest his mind of early prejudices and dogmas, alike fatal to the progress of true science and the advancement of the welfare of mankind. There are many medical men who are fully convinced of the facts and the truth of the principles of the Homceopathic school, who are still in the Allopathic ranks, whom circumstances, or interest, or perhaps in some cases, a want of moral courage, deters from adopting it; nevertheless the numbers who are joining their ranks is continually increasing, and must continue so, as the principles become better understood. There is some analogy in the Homceopathic principle in changing some of our previous views of truth to that of the clerical profession, from the discoveries in astronomy and geology; in both cases there is no change of any physical law, no compromise with the truth, but unfortunately, perhaps for the obstinacy of men, (and very good men,) necessarily modifying some of our old notions, which, however sacred they may be held, are founded neither in philosophy nor in truth. The human mind has ever been so, and probably ever will be; ignorance, selfishness, prejudice, and scepticism have, and will continue to retard the advancement of science and erect barriers to the progress of truth. But the friends of enlightened Homaeopathyhave nothing to fear; ajudicious and enlightened course of conduct in the investigation of science and its application to disease and suffering, will eventually achieve a victory; prejudice and opposition, like 48 A:hat against every new principle in practical science, is already abating, and ere long many who are foremost in opposition, will become its friends, the progress of medical science will be still onward, and relief from disease and suffering effected-in a more pleasant, safe, and effectual manner. ERRATA. Page 5, 2d line from bottom, omit and. " 8, 6th line from bottom, for their, read its. " 12, 2d line from top, add Strychnine. " 12, 4th line from bottom, for p?;oduce, read produces. " 13, 12th line from top, for tooth-ache, read teeth-ache. " 17, 5th line from top, omit in. "18, 10th line from top, for point, read pivot. " 21, 2d line from bottom, for medicinal, read medical. " 22, 21st line from bottom, for medicinal, read medical. 5 p A Ic UNIVURA-TY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 02011 9155.7? ý7 ý-d 14~ 7 At-i 40 II' r"~p WIT Al5 S41P 74. Q Am AMI