the same time these young men do mildly object, individually and collectively, to being sat upon. They are ready and willing to work, and literally spoiling for an opportunity.

Very sincerely yours,

HARVEY B. DALE.

FROM A WOMAN'S POINT OF VIEW.

EDITOR NORTH AMERICAN:

As you have kindly opened the columns of the NORTH AMERICAN for discussion and criticism of the management of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, and as women are proverbial fault finders, it is but fair that one should have a pen, if not a voice, in helping allay this little ruffling breeze which has been raised about our ears.

I have always felt more pity for the President of the United States than for any other man, for the reason that his life is made miserable by the constant importunity of office seekers. But now my sympathies will go out to the President of the American Institute of Homœopathy, as it is going to be a most perplexing duty for him to so bestow the few offices under his control that all of the 1,633 members may be satisfied. What a pity that there are not 1,633 offices to fill, then each of us could have one and there could be no cause of complaint.

We can sympathize with the applicants for office under the government, as many of them doubtless are depending on the position sought to earn their bread and butter; but in a medical organization, where the election to office is but a compliment or merited honor, it seems past belief that any should ask or scheme for position, and should feel aggrieved and refuse allegiance because of lack of recognition in this way.

While Dr. Strickler's papers are always interesting and to the point, I must take issue with him as to the cause of the dwindling in attendance on the meetings of the Institute, and the lack of interest on the part of the younger members. If it can be proved that there is this decrease, and this lack of interest, I am sure there must be other cause for it than the one he so forcibly presents. It has been my opinion that the newer members went to the meetings chiefly to become acquainted and to learn something new from papers and discussions. If, like myself, they would consider it a hardship to be shut up in a committee room or on the Board of Censors, while the sections were reporting.

That comparatively new members are set to work I can personally vouch for, and when their first promise to furnish a paper is religiously kept, even if not of the highest order of merit, they are never afterward without appeals to work. Doubtless, all chairmen of sections try to work in new timber, as I did, when I had the opportunity, but they do not always find the newer members so willing to work as has been so recently represented. The greatest

difficulty found by any chairman, I venture to assert, is in keeping his fellows up to their work, after their pledge has been given.

Even you, Mr. Editor, might relate a tale of woe, if you would, on the difficulty you find in getting lists of sections in time for printing in the Transactions, and of your many unanswered letters.

I quite agree with the editor of "The Medical Counselor" that there are other causes for the slow growth of our national society than that its offices and committees are not filled with younger

men.

In my opinion the question of expense is the chief, if not the only, cause which keeps the doctors from becoming members of the Institute, and prevents them from attending its meetings after they are members. While Dr. Knight's argument in favor of reducing the yearly dues from $5 to $3 is a good one, and for the benefit of the recent graduate, I would heartily endorse it; yet I cannot believe that a doctor with any kind of a practice could find it hard to raise $5 a year, or would begrudge that amount for the benefit to be derived from membership in his national society. Then, too, he receives in return more than his money's worth in the Transactions, which brings to him papers and discussion on whatever is best and latest in medical science.

The item of yearly dues is a small matter, and probably more doctors neglect to pay from their proverbial carelessness in money matters than from any other cause. But when they have to travel half across the continent, or entirely across, to attend a meeting of the national society, and to the expense of the trip is added the hotel bill, then it becomes a serious matter. Often these two items are small as compared with what the doctor loses from his practice during his absence, when he has neither partner nor assistant to take charge of it.

Another reason for non-attendance is that the meeting is held earlier in the season than most of our patrons take their vacations. Many physicians cannot leave their patients, and those who cannot afford two vacations wait and go later.

Considering all this, the wonder is not that so few attend the meetings of our national society, but that so many attend. That so many go to this expense yearly and make other sacrifices in order to be there, proves what the American Institute of Homoeopathy means to them.

But admitting all I have claimed, are the meetings so slimly attended, considering the membership? And is the membership small in proportion to the number of Homoeopathic physicians in the United States, or as compared with other sects? I think not. If any of our diligent compilers of statistics will take the trouble to write the secretary of the American Medical Association they will probably find that out of some 90,000 Allopathic physicians in this country, not so many in proportion, as with us, are members of their national society, or are more regular in attendance on its meetings. The year we met in Denver there were but a few more members in

attendance on the meeting of the American Medical Association than we numbered.

Distance from Allopathic centers could not be pleaded as excuse in their case; for, like the poor, the old school physicians are plentiful everywhere.

In the many allopathic journals which find their way to my table I note no criticism on the way in which offices are distributed in that organization as a cause for slim attendance on its meetings. Is it not possible that this continuous fault-finding and criticism on the part of all-wise editors and others may be the "wet blanket” which is thrown over lukewarm members and non-affiliating members of the Institute, and thus dampens their ardor and quenches their enthusiasm? While occasional needed criticism of any large organization is wholesome, yet there may be too much of even a good thing.

Readers of our medical journals who are not yet members of their national society may conclude, after a time, that the Institute is a badly managed body; that its younger members are unfairly treated; that its older members are grasping for empty honors and a "grind" of work; that its sessions are too long and its memorial service too dry; that too much frolicking is indulged in and not enough attention paid to serious business; that, in short, its members, as a whole, are “a bad lot," and that it is a good Institute to keep away from. Would it not be the better way to adopt the plan of the hypnotist, and make "suggestions" that the "dear old Institute" is all, or is becoming all, its most faithful adherents could wish it to be? Speak of the good it has accomplished for our school of medicine; and of the still greater good it is destined to accomplish. Urge all to attend upon its meetings when possible, not only for the good to be gained individually, but as a duty, without hope of other reward.

What matters it to us, isolated from Homoeopathic centers, whether we receive individual recognition or not? Our patrons know nothing of it and care less. Any little office that we might hold would not make us better physicians in their estimation nor increase their faith in our method of cure; but when it is noised abroad that Homoeopathy is growing in numbers and influence; that it is gaining recognition as a school of medicine; is taking foremost rank in matters educational and scientific, and gaining by degrees those positions in public institutions to which it is so justly entitled, then indeed do we have just cause for pride. That is what attracts attention to Homoeopathy and what will bring us patients and du

cats.

If we could only instill into the hearts of our members the loyalty to their "sciety" which burns in the breasts of our colored brethren and "sistren" for the "scieties" to which they belong, nothing could keep us from attending its meetings.

Let the word go out that a meeting of the order of the "Sisters of the Mysterious Ten" is to be held, or that the daughters of the

"Household of Ruth" are to "turn out" to attend the funeral of a sister, let the day be the most sultry of summer's heat or the coldest or most stormy on record; let the baby be sick; washing or ironing going on; visitors in the house, or what not housemaid and cook leave everything and respond cheerfully to the call. It is not alone for the unalloyed pleasure enjoyed in attending on the prolonged funeral exercises, or the jollity of the lodge room that makes the sisterhood thus dutiful, but a fine is imposed for failure to attend funeral or lodge meeting.

I wonder how the fining of absentees of the American Institute would work? The money thus collected could be turned over to the Hahnemann Statue fund.

As all who discuss the affairs of the American Institute suggest some reform or change in its methods, it never would do for me to omit my duty in that particular.

If there is one feature I could wish eliminated from that or any of our medical societies, it is the political. I wish it were possible to do away with it; but I suppose it is not possible. With the political element left out, the meetings would probably lose their zest for many, and would be more sparsely attended than now. But I much wish that the old-fashioned principle would again become the fashion, that the office should seek the man. I have attended medical societies where it appeared as if the meeting had been called for the sole purpose of electing a president. But little else was talked or thought of before the election; after it was over, the politicians dispersed, seemingly well satisfied with their part of the programme. Again I have attended meetings at which the defeated presidential candidate and his henchmen got "mad" and refused to play. I have gone home from such meetings so disgusted that I have exclaimed, without the aid of the prayer book, "From another such meeting 'good Lord deliver us.'

No matter how paramount politics may become in other schools. of medicine, I can but feel that in ours there are other considerations which should have superior claims on every physician who has the good of Homoeopathy at heart. And who of us can fail to wish and work for the prosperity of Homoeopathy when it has done so much for us? Sincerely yours, SARAH J. MILLSOP.

Book Reviews.

Text Book of Nervous Diseases. By Charles L. Dana, A. M., M.D. Fourth Revised Edition. Profusely illustrated. William Wood & Company, New York, 1897. $3.50, pp. 640.

The first edition of Dr. Dana's work appeared five years ago, and met with immediate approval.

The new edition of Dr. Dana's book is slightly enlarged and practically rewritten. The part on Peripheral Neuroses is entirely

rearranged; new chapters have been added on Encephalitis, Multiple Sclerosis, Meningitis, and Traumatic Neuroses. The anatomical chapters have all been revised and rewritten, and the anatomy and pathology of the work have been brought into relation with modern views as to the neuronic architecture of the nervous system. The therapeutical part has been extended by additions to the appendix giving technical details of the various accepted therapeutic measures of modern neurology.

Many new illustrations have been added. Withal, however, the book has been but slightly enlarged, and its general character, which has met with such universal approval in the preceding editions, has not been changed. It presents modern neurology in a concise yet clear and accessible form.

A Manual of Clinical Diagnosis by Microscopical and Chemical Methods. By Charles E. Simon, M.D., late Assistant Resident Physician, Johns Hopkins Hospital. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Profusely illustrated. Lea Brothers & Company, Philadelphia. $3.50, pp. 530.

The demand for a new edition of this book within a year is not only an evidence of its value, but an encouraging sign of the widespread interest in one of the most creditable developments of modern medicine. The time is past when it is advisable for any professional man to trust his patients or his reputation to any admixture of guesswork in diagnosis. Nothing less than certainty is the requirement of the time, and fortunately science can now furnish the physician with practicable methods which reduce uncertainty to a minimum. Dr. Simon has enjoyed the advantages of the best European laboratories as well as those of his connection with the Johns Hopkins Hospital, and he is accordingly well qualified to present a thorough and authoritative treatise on the approved chemical and microscopical methods of identifying disease. He has not assumed previous knowledge of the subject on the part of his readers, but has given full directions to enable even those unfamiliar with such procedures to obtain satisfactory results. His work has reached a foremost place in a year, even in the already rich literature of its subject, and its popularity has enabled the author to give it the benefit of a thorough revision. The illustrations and colored plates are noticeable for beauty and instructiveness.

A Text Book of the Practice of Medicine. By James M. Anders, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of the Practice of Medicine in the Medico-Chirurgical College, Philadelphia, etc., etc. Illustrated. W. B. Saunders, 925 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa., 1898. $5.50, pp. 1287.

The important additions made within the past few years to our knowledge of the practice of medicine in general and of the diagnosis and treatment of disease in particular have created a need for thoroughly up-to-date text-books by authors of wide experience. The present work gives in a comprehensive manner the approved results of the latest scientific studies bearing upon medical affections, and portrays with rare force and clearness the clinical pictures of the dif