evacuated, exercising an equal pressure upon the abdominal organs. About three quarts, as near as could be measured, of fluid was evacuated. Warm vinegar injections were used, washing out the womb until the vinegar returned clear. This was used for six days. Vinegar is an astringent and antiseptic, and had a good effect. We ordered a tonic for several weeks. She was discharged without any untoward effects, and remained in good health several years after.

Most authorities are opposed to rapid evacuation in such cases, and also to pressure being made upon the abdomen. Emmet and some others advise rapid evacuation. Rapid evacuation was used in this case without any bad symptoms supervening. We believe that in such cases the menstrual discharge is absorbed in part and lessened.

E. CARMICHAEL ROTHROCK, M. D. Corsicana, Tex.

Physicians use the Brief as a reference in their prac

tice.

Pneumonia-Hematuria.

I am well pleased with Dr. Rothrock's treatment of pneumonia, in June BRIEF, page 264, and think it the only rational treatment; believing, as I do, that pneumonia is an inflammatory fever and not an idopathic. Would like to know of the doctor if pneumonia is common in Texas during the summer months or was the case reported, one of his last winter or spring cases. If in the winter is it usual to have malarial troubles in Texas at that season.

How does he know that his case was one of malarial hematuria?

Is it not probable that the hematuria was produced by his turpentine poultices?

Some years ago I had a case of typhomalarial (so-called) fever. About the third day I found I had a complication with hematuria, which I supposed was malarial, but before I left I found the mother had given him a dose of turpentine, as was her custom when any of the family were sick. I left some medicine

which at once suppressed the hemorrhage.

About three days after I found my patient with tympanitis of the bowels and at once ordered turpentine applications.

On the following day I found my patient much better, tympanitis all gone but the hematuria set up again, from which I concluded that the turpentine was the cause. I gave my usual remedies, omitted the turpentine, and had a rapid recovery.

Was I right in my conclusion?
Cabool, Mo.

J. W. MIRES, M. D.

Personal Ridicule.

I was of the opinion all the while (and, by the way, am still of the same opinion) that the BRIEF was published for the dissemination of the experiences of its contributors in practical therapeutics, but I see much valuable space occupied with personal ridicule.

In the concluding chapter of Dr. Fothergill's "Hand-book of Treatment," he has this to say, speaking to physicians: "Wherever you are, and under whatever circumstances you are placed, never forget two things: (1) Your own selfrespect; (2) The honor of your profession. The first is your duty to yourself; the second is your duty to your neighbor. First, see that you conduct yourself so as to insure the respect of them with whom you are thrown in contact. Secondly, never speak of, or behave to, a professional brother, so as to bring him into discredit. This last," he says, "is very important. The want of it has done much harm, and prevented us, as a body, from taking the position which would otherwise have long since been accorded to us. Each ecclesiastic asserts the dignity of his office, however unworthy he may think some others are to fill it. It would be wise if we followed their example-in this respect, at least." I have been reading some numbers of the BRIEF, and notice with what effulgent criticism Dr. Spain, of Nevada, Tex., and his elaborated attempt to make a "driveler," a "donkey," yea, an egregious ass, of Dr. J. F. Newman, of Tangier, Va. Now, it seems to me that if Dr. Spain could not agree with the views and management of the case as

given by Dr. Newman, why in the name of common decency should he belabor himself so to injure the feelings of, or slur his name as a physician. I would, in all kindness and good feeling, ask Dr. Spain to read Dr. Griffin's criticism on Dr. Merrick's "Dram-Grain System," and to please notice how kindly Dr. Griffin disagrees with Dr. Merrick, although differing widely, Dr. G. says nothing so harsh as to wound the feelings of any one.

Any of us can differ with the other without so much venomous verbosity, and I would commend the spirit of Dr. Griffin to all in their criticisms and differings with their brother physicians.

I think it is time to let the columns of the BRIEF be used for its legitimate and original purpose, and not load its editor down with these communications of bombastic slang and vituperation.

I love to read all the articles, let it be from whom it may, and no matter how much I may differ with the tenets or theories of the writer, if I criticize, or attempt to criticize, I must do so courteously. I hope all the readers of the BRIEF who think as I do on this matter, will say "Amen," and let us speak kindly of each other, or not at all.

May the BRIEF live long and continue its useful mission and get brighter each month, and that its subscribers may be so numerous that the editor's bank account may swell until he will want no more, and that each writer to its columns will remember that "humanum est errare." JNO. W. BROWN, M. D. Cyclone, W. Va.

Atrocious Rhymes.

A man may be a pretty good doctor and know but little about rhymes and poetry. The rhymes in that little squib on page 504 of the October BRIEF are perfect, as the readers of the BRIEF may see. Look in Byron or Shakespeare for bad rhymes. I suspect the rhymes are "atrocious" in Dr. Doane's estimation, simply because they have a point, and prick him not a little. However, I have had a hearty laugh, not over the rhymes, but over Dr. Doane's reply to them. Dwamish, Wash. DR. LEAHEM.

Thanks for Replies.

I asked for treatment for diphtheria in the February BRIEF and the replies came so thick and fast, from all sections of the country, that it was an impossible undertaking to answer all of them by letter. So, if the BRIEF will permit me, I will thank all who so kindly answered my appeal.

I appreciate the visits of the BRIEF more than all of my other journals. E. F. MCMILLAN, M. D.

Prairieville, La.

Milksickness.

When I advanced my idea in regard to milksickness I expected to meet with some opposition. For I believe that the term is a misnomer and is, therefore, an error, and am conscious that it is a difficult thing to do to root out an error.

My reasons for claiming that the word milksickness is an error and misnomer is based on the fact that it is not necessary for the production of the disease to eat either milk or meat of diseased animals.

Milksickness (so-called) never occurs in a country where malaria does not exist. The malady is more prevalent in alluvial districts.

I want to place myself on record that I am a firm advocate of the malarial origin of the disease, let it be designated by what term it may. If it is true that seeing is believing it is also true that feeling is knowing, but there may be some fallacy in the teaching of both senses for our perceptions derived from sight and touch are sometimes deceptive.

That the lower animals are exempt from malarial diseases is a mistaken idea, that has long since been demonstrated to the scientific world to be erroneous and absurd.

The experiments of Dr. Crudeli and Klebs demonstrate conclusively that the lower animals are not exempt but do have malarial diseases.

Arnold, Ky.

W. H. S. CRABB, M. D.

The Brief will be better than ever for 1890, enlarged and improved.