may be a good knowledge of general chemistry, and of botany. The instruction given in physiology, histology, embryology, hygiene, and bacteriology, might, perhaps, be somewhat modified so as to be of special value to the medical student, and at the same time not be less valuable to the general student.

With this work accomplished and the general mental development gained by his academic course, and especially since by this time the acquisition of knowledge has become a second nature to him and he has learned to work to the best advantage, he certainly ought to be one year nearer the degree of M.D. than is the high school graduate. I believe with President Eliot that the course of study may be so adjusted as to allow a boy to enter college at eighteen, and that, with electives, a properly arranged course of three years should entitle the average student to an A.B. degree. He could then take his four years' medical course and graduate at twenty-five.

I have been in communication with some of our smaller, as well as our larger colleges and universities, hoping thus to get a more exact idea of what may be thought of the matter, as well as to learn what, if anything, is being done in the direction proposed.

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that the subject is a most important one, and that some immediate action is demanded. President Carter, of Williams College, writes: "Nothing has been done as yet by our college in the direction of so arranging the electives for the senior year as to make it possible for medical students to anticipate one year of their course. I have no doubt that ultimately some such change will be made and I should personally greatly favor such a change.

President Gates, of Amherst, says: "With all that tends to a more thorough professional equipment for our medical men, I have the fullest sympathy. The tendency to hurry men into the practice of that very important and influential profession with a slender equipment by way of liberal training or scientific knowledge seems

to me most lamentable."

That something may be done to encourage our young men and women to obtain a liberal education as a preliminary to the study of medicine, I would suggest that the American Institute of Homœopathy appoint a committee to bring the matter more fully before the colleges and universities of the United States and conjointly with them to so arrange or modify the curriculum in the academic and medical schools as to enable the average student to earn his A.B. and M.D. degrees in seven years.

MEDICAL EDUCATION IN STATE SCHOOLS. BY CHESTER G. HIGBEE, M.D., ST. PAUL, MINN.

The all-important question of popular education at public expense is one that has been under discussion in all civilized countries for

many years past. In several of the governments of Europe and in some of the States of our Union laws for compulsory education are in force. The basis for all these laws is the assumed fact that people must have a certain amount of education in order to prepare them for the all-important duty of citizenship. Extending the same idea, governments establish colleges and universities where young men and women may be taught not only matters pertaining to every-day life, but they are also instructed in the higher duties of government and science, and even psychic phenomena and speculative themes are discussed. To what extent it is right that a government should carry this matter of education at public expense is a question not yet settled. There are eminent men and women who believe that the government has no right to carry this public instruction higher than the ordinary grammar schools, contending that higher education is not at all necessary to make good citizens. The fact is cited that comparatively few pupils ever extend their studies above the grammar schools.

On the other side, it is contended that the State should furnish facilities to all who desire to attain to any degree of excellence warranted by individual capacity. This is the paternal idea. It is the view we get from the monarchical governments of the old world. The American idea of freedom in all things is opposed to this paternalism in government. For more than a century the people of this country learned what they could of the things most important to them, and were free to follow the business they seemed best qualified to carry on, to the satisfaction of the public. The people, not the government, judged as to their qualifications. Success depended entirely upon their own energy and ability. No government edict declared that this man or that should not come into competition with them.

Would any one dare say that the men of those days were inferior to the men of the present generation? It is possible that this liberty became, in a measure, license? In the rush and whirl of American progress impostors arose and flourished on the credulity of the people, and there was not time to scrutinize the candidate for public favor as closely as formerly. The knowledge we get of those who would serve us is gained at arm's length. We know of them, but we do not know them. We know what a telegram or some correspondent says of them, and this is dictated or paid for by the candidate, no doubt, in many instances. It is the reaction from the license which liberty led to that has caused our people to look to government for laws and direction in so many of the affairs of life. The latest of these fads is the education of doctors by the State and the enacting of laws to protect them. We know all this is done in the name and for the protection of the people. Who ever heard of any number of citizens, outside of the profession, asking for such

How

laws? No, we contend this state of society is brought about by the large number who of later years have crowded into the profession, so that those already in wish to devise some way to stop the influx. About every profession but that of the clergy is now clamoring for education and protection by the government. It is a well-fixed principle of our government that no sectarian laws shall be allowed on the statute-books. If the State attempts to teach the science and art of medicine, it should do it in the broadest sense. There would be just as much reason and justice in an attempt by the State to instruct pupils in the tenets of the different sects of religion as to do the same thing in medicine. If the State decides to educate students for the practice of medicine, it should teach them all the same things. They should all listen to the same lectures, all have the same clinical advantages, and all should pass their final examinations upon the same list of questions. We contend the State has no right to teach them sectarianism. It should teach them everything that is known to enable them to prevent disease and to cure it. We wish here to record our belief that high scholarly attainments will not make successful physicians of all men; something besides learning is required. How few of us ever attain to our ideal of a great physician! many drop by the wayside ere the career is scarcely begun! It is claimed by the Allopatnic School that that school embodies all that is known of the science of medicine. Our honored colleague, Dr. Dake, has recently shown, by quotations from many of the most eminent men of the Old School, how unfounded is this claim. Up to the time that Hahnemann promulgated the doctrine of Homœopathy, what progress had the world made in the science of medicine and in the cure of disease? History teaches us that there had been no progress up to that time. The doctrine of cleanliness, which is antisepsis, was taught by Hahnemann in the preparation and the administration of medicine. His followers have more intelligently taught sanitation and hygiene. The Old School claims all the credit for advancement along these lines. How much is due to the Homœopathic doctrine no one will ever know. It is fair to suppose that it has modified their ideas in this as it has in the administration of drugs. We contend that Homoeopathy to-day teaches the only method of curing disease approaching anything like a science. Why, then, should not all students be obliged to learn it and pass a satisfactory examination before the officers appointed by the State to certify that they are qualified to practice medicine and surgery?

We would have for teachers approved believers in Homœopathy, for therapeutics and materia medica, in these schools, and the best clinical facilities to illustrate and verify their teachings. We would have the same facilities accorded the Old School. Those chairs, conceded by all to be in common, should be filled by the best men to be procured, and their appointment should in no wise be dependent upon

their adherence to any school. Students educated in this way would certainly spend no time uselessly. They would be educated in the fullest sense of the word. They would be prepared to meet the emergencies of the sick room as they cannot be so long as the present mode of instruction is followed. It is true that our best Homœopathic medical schools now teach the science and art of medicine and surgery in a very large sense. They are broad and liberal, and do not hesitate to adopt a good thing because it originated with the Old School. What a contrast between the new men filling up our own State, under existing laws, and physicians educated in the ideal school! We firmly believe that if all students were compelled to learn Homœopathy thoroughly, so as to pass satisfactory examinations upon theory and practice and the materia medica, we would convert the world! We owe it to our traditions to be progressive. We cannot stand still and survive.

If our faith is sufficient, and is backed by corresponding work, we can remove the mountain of bigotry and prejudice, and place on its foundation a principle that is broad and enduring.

If the State schools adopt this plan, the other medical schools will be obliged to do the same. We know the Old-School colleges now claim to teach all there is to learn of medical science. Thousands of Homœopathic physicians who have attended the Old-School colleges bear witness that these colleges teach comparatively little that is of any practical value in curing the sick. We think it a great loss to the people that the principles of Homœopathy are not known and practiced by all physicians. Why not rally, and support the only plan that gives any promise of extending this blessing to all the world? If the Holy Sepulchre, which was the symbol of an idea, was worthy the toils and sacrifices of the crusaders to restore it to sacred hands, how much more worthy is this Temple of Knowledge of our struggles and most heroic endeavors until victory shall crown our efforts.

All the above papers were then referred to the publication committee.

DISCUSSION.

Dr. Grosvenor addressed himself to some phases of the paper by Dr. Spalding in relation to the A.B. degree. I ask, said Dr. Grosvenor, may a young man in seven years qualify himself for these titles? That is a suggestion that ought to be taken up and thought out to its fullest extent. During the last two years of college life students should have an elective college course, so that they could take chemistry, biology, and embryology, and so count two years in their course of study. A study of this kind will give as much intellectual training as the studies which are now crowded into the last two years of the college curriculum. The four

years of

medical college study involves as much intellectual training as any general college course, and there ought to be some way in which those students can show to the world that they have had this intellectual training. Their tutors should do something to aid them; and I could wish that this American Institute had a committee to look into this matter thoroughly, not to interfere with the great literary colleges of the land but to encourage them to consider the position of the medical student with reference to this question. We have talked considerably this morning about elevating college standards and about college professors and examining boards. These are all good things to consider; but the fact remains that much of this elevating and uplifting of the profession should begin in our offices; the preceptor can do more than the college or the examining board or the State legislature to raise the standard of the medical profession. My last three students have all been college men. It is an easy matter for you doctors who are located in certain cities and towns, to draw about you scholarly men for students. It is easy because these students appreciate a good office and bring with them an air of refinement and gentility which is in almost violent contrast to the general appearance and demeanor of some of the other class.

Dr. T. C. Duncan detailed the advance course of study which the National Homoeopathic College has inaugurated, and which it recommends to all intending applicants for college work later on. It prepares them to know what will be expected of them in the college and after they leave it.

Dr. George Royal said that he had been quite a little interested in Dr. Higbee's paper, and considered the question raised therein one of vital importance. I think that our materia medica in these State schools should be taught to all our scholars; and if that could be done I should most thoroughly and heartily approve such suggestion. But now this question comes to my mind. He says we should have two chairs-Materia Medica and Therapeutics. We will suppose that Dr. Allen teaches materia medica in such an institution; now is it possible that in that case he cannot be assisted by Prof. Ludlam who will give him the experience in gynecology as it refers to therapeutics much better than a man who is not a Homoeopathist? The same question will apply to all the other chairs except, of course, anatomy, physiology, and other fundamental branches; but are we not liable to lose much if we restrict ourselves to those two chairs? will the compensation gained by having all medical students in our State universities listen to lectures in materia medica and therapeutics be equivalent to the loss we must inevitably sustain when we throw out the other branches of study-when we throw overboard the practical experience. Is it wise to urge such a plan before the authorities of a State university?