It was the sad privilege of the writer, with others of the younger men of the college Faculty, to help lay him in his grave in the modest little acre of the dead in his native town of Harrison.

"He, being dead, yet liveth."

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE.

THEORY VERSUS PRACTICE.-In speaking of the theory of medicine, it was intended to convey the idea of its principles, as distinguished from its practice. But in reality it was a "speculation or scheme of things," not founded on well-proven facts. Thus theories were being constantly advanced and changed by writers on medicine, and the study of medicine resolved itself into the analysis. of various theories and the adoption of one suited to the mentality of the individual. In this reasoning from imagination, the practice of medicine has been rendered theoretical and its progress constantly impeded.

We would naturally suppose that theories would have been based upon actual observation at the bedside of the sick, and made to conform to facts observed in the treatment of disease. But this was not the case. On the contrary, a theory having been formed, the facts of observation were contorted to fit the theory, and the administration of remedies was controlled by it.

There are three truths that should be constantly borne in mind by every one engaged in the practice of medicine, as upon them only can a rational practice be founded. They are: 1st, That in all cases of disease there is an impairment of vital power in the parts involved. 2d, That there is a natural tendency to recovery or renewal of life; and 3d, That the human body acts on medicine, and not medicine on the body. These propositions may not be new to our readers, yet they are frequently, if not generally, ignored in practice, and to draw attention to them as principles of action and not articles of faith is the object of this article.

It is the common opinion that medicine acts on the system and thus aids in removing disease. Now, I am well satisfied that this is an error, and that the contrary is the fact-instead of medicines acting on the body, the body acts on them. For instance, a sinapism or blister, if applied to the healthy skin, produces redness and then vesication; but in enfeebled conditions of the system, it acts slowly and imperfectly, and on the dead body it produces no effect. Here, it is the natural efforts of the system to remove an irritant that causes an increased flow of blood to the parts, and, at last, separation of the epidermis. Administer a diuretic, and it passes into the blood and out through the kidneys. Why? Be

JOHN MILTON SCUDDER, M. D.

But we desire to apply Paul's teaching to Eclecticism as a school of medicine. Though we have made rapid progress in numbers and influence, and are stronger to-day than we have been before, we have not accomplished as much as we ought, and there have been times when the movement has retrograded. Why? We have carried dead weights, and we have had certain besetting sins which were unpleasant. Let us examine some of them:

Thomsonianism, or the idea that a doctor could be grown from a $25 patented book and a few herbs, without education, has been a persistent incubus. There is no use for medical colleges, or an extended curriculum of study;--read our books, we tell it so plainly that the wayfaring man can understand put it in practice, with much cursing of the Old-School, and success is yours.

"Give a dog a bad name," etc., is an old saw that has a great deal of meaning. Steam doctor! Botanic! Root and herb doctor! etc., etc., have been dead weights that we were obliged to carry,— in part because we affiliated with Botanics, but principally from their continued application to us by our competitors.

Success brought its usual crowd of parasites. As Eclecticism became popular, Jones, Brown, and Simpkins, who had gathered all they knew of medicine from Thomson's book or Beach's Family Practice, became Eclectics; and we had to stand godfather to their ignorance and malpractice. The thought of some of these deadweights and their miserable and ridiculous errors is enough to make one sick of his profession.

The demand for Eclectic physicians outrunning its supply brought, as we might expect, considerable imperfect material, but we could congratulate ourselves that our condition was not worse than that of our regular opponents. But the whims or private interests of those conducting our medical colleges put down the fees and opened the doors to promiscuous graduation. Honorary degrees were issued to those who could n't come; they were called honorary, but with a few exceptions they were dishonorable to all parties concerned.

Medical colleges sprang up in the larger cities, which was well enough; but of the Faculties, the less said, the better. They taught crudely; and their students failed in that primary training so essential to true success. But in one thing they did not fail,-to give the pupil an exaggerated idea of the resources of Eclecticism— and its adaptation to the treatment of chronic disease. Such colleges, such professors, such teachings have been constant deadweights, and if it had not been for the miserable practice of our opponents and a few good men that furnished our text-books, it would have wrecked us long since.

The treatment of chronic disease has been one of our besetting sins. The first card the beginner would issue would have on it, "Special attention given to the treatment of chronic disease, and the diseases of women." The business of the young man is to es

249