The President, J. W. DOWLING, M.D., then delivered the

ANNUAL ADDRESS.

A short time since, in glancing over the pages of a reputable medical journal, my eye fell upon an article headed "Medical Societies Criticised." Now, this journal was thrust upon me just as I was sitting down, pen in hand, with a brain tired by a hard winter's work, to write the President's annual address for this meeting of the American Institute of Homoeopathy. The title of the article impressed me, for naturally everything relating to medical societies has been of unusual interest to me for the past twelve months. I laid down my pen and perused the criticism carefully. All taking an active part in the proceedings of the meeting described were severely handled, but the poor President, it seemed to me, received more than his share of abuse. His appearance, his manner, and particularly his annual address, were subjects of severe animadversion. As I finished I drew a long and deep breath, and said audibly, and wickedly perhaps I hope some day the author of that article will be President of a Medical Society; that he will have an annual address to prepare and deliver, and that he will be limited for a subject to the progress of homoeopathy during the past year.

This matter of a President's address is not a voluntary act. The by-laws of this Institute say: "The President shall deliver an address, at the opening of each session, on the progress of homoopathy during the past year, and shall make such suggestions as he shall deem necessary for the Institute to take action upon during the session." He is not obliged to make suggestions, but an address must be delivered, and upon a certain topic. In delivering it he is simply performing an imperative duty. He does not invite

criticism.

The object of the American Institute of Homœopathy is stated in its Constitution to be "the improvement of homoeopathic therapeutics and all other departments of medical science." It is only necessary for us to glance over the pages of the thirty odd volumes of Transactions to satisfy ourselves as to how much has been accomplished by our national body in this direction. Although it

is not stated in the Constitution-has not this Institute an object. beyond this? Is there not much benefit derived from the interchange of fraternal feelings between practitioners from all parts of the United States, and through our delegates to the International Congress, between brother practitioners throughout the civilized world? Is not the freedom from care, the rest from arduous professional labors, the change of scene, the recreation (to many of our number the only opportunity throughout the twelve months of the year to absolutely free themselves from the tiresome and trying daily routine of the physician's life), enough in itself to more than compensate for the expense and loss of time necessary for attendance upon its annual meetings? The friendships formed, the differences explained and reconciled, the pleasant reflections upon the meeting passed, the looking forward to the reunion of the year to come, combine to make these gatherings valuable to us collectively and individually. The days passed with the members of this Institute assembled in a body, particularly since it has been our custom to sleep, eat and drink beneath one common roof, have been among the happiest of my life, and I have reason to believe that this is but an expression of the experience of all whose custom it is to regularly attend the meetings of this our national medical organization.

I congratulate the Institute upon the prospect this year of a large attendance, a profitable and pleasant meeting.

Progress has undoubtedly been made during the past year-as has been in every year since our illustrious father in medicine first expounded our law of cure. But differences of opinion exist among our members as to what constitutes progress in homoeopathy. Having been chosen to your Presidency by no faction or party but by a unanimous vote, it is proper that I should regard, in any remarks which I shall make, those differences of opinion. I am debarred, if I have any special views on important matters which to a certain extent divide the members of our school, referring to them. It is not for me to say on this occasion whether I believe in the universality or non-universality of our law of cure. If it is my custom, in prescribing, to use the very high dilutions, the medium or the very low, and if my belief is that either one of these

preparations is the only proper and rational method of prescribing when treating disease in accordance with our law-knowing that each of these views has its adherents among those who have elevated me to this position-a proper delicacy prevents me from giving utterance to my own.

If it is my belief that as a professed follower of Hahnemann, in my efforts to relieve suffering and cure disease safely, promptly and pleasantly, I am, regardless of diagnosis and pathology, to be governed in the selection of my remedy entirely by the totality of the symptoms; and perhaps being a non-believer in the theory that certain diseases are self-limited (some of these from their onset being incurable, while others tend to recovery and are not, so far as our present knowledge goes, shortened or greatly changed by medical treatment), if I hold with those who style themselves pure homœopaths, that provided a remedy can be found which, in its action upon the healthy, accurately corresponds with the superficial symptoms of a certain case of sickness, and that remedy be administered in a sufficiently infinitesimal quantity, the patient must recover and that if he does recover, my single remedy has cured him-I am obliged to refrain from expressing such views as my own, for there are in our membership thoughtful and thoroughly educated men, successful men, and practitioners of large experience, who claim that to relieve suffering and cure disease in the most speedy and effectual manner-which all concede is the prime aim of the physician's calling-the homoeopath should be untrammeled; that all that is worth culling from the experience of ages belongs to him, if in his judgment necessity compels him to use it; that cases arise requiring in their treatment purely mechanical measures, others where his knowledge of organic chemistry and the physiological action of drugs must be resorted to for means of relief, and that there are others positively incurable, requiring purely palliative treatment; and that physiology and pathology should never be lost sight of in the treatment of disease; that it is not the outward manifestations alone with which he has to do. And these men claim that they too are pure homoeopaths, for they have proclaimed their belief in the homoeopathic law of cure, and strictly adhere to that law whenever in their judgment it is compatible with the best interests of their patients so to do.

Harmony is always an evidence of progress, and I congratulate the members of our Institute on the fact that during the past year there has been a remarkable freedom from controversy and disputing upon matters of difference connected with our efforts as homoeopathic practitioners to cure disease. There have been fewer unkind criticisms; fewer open letters in our medical journals; more respect has been paid to the views of those entertaining differences of opinion; liberalism of thought and action has been countenanced and encouraged; and the conclusion seems to have become almost general that it would be a misfortune if we, who have always been considered liberal, should now depart from our time-honored principles, and create dissension and possibly rupture by an attempt to restrict the adherents of our school. We are all believers in the homoeopathic law of cure, and to the best of our individual ability practice in accordance with that law. Some, perhaps, are more successful in their prescriptions than others, but so far as I have been able to judge, no matter what his special views as to the size of the dose, as to the frequency of its repetition, as to whether greater reliance is to be placed upon the original provings of Hahnemann and his immediate followers, or upon those of more recent date-the homoeopathic practitioner is well pleased with the results of his efforts. Few believe, fewer are ready to acknowledge, that a brother practitioner entertaining different views from himself is more successful than he. Some years since, in an article in one of our Western journals, the writer claimed a remarkable degree of success in his prescriptions for the sick, but he said: "There is a secret to my success, and that secret is, that I never use an old remedy where a new one is indicated." The following month a brief article appeared from the pen of another practitioner, who claimed that he, too, had met with remarkable success in his prescriptions, and felt that, with the author of the article in the preceding number, he, too, had reason to be proud, and that he, too, had a secret which he was ready, for the benefit of his fellow practitioners, to divulge-and his secret was that he never used a new remedy where an old one was indicated. It will not be out of place for me to suggest an absolute cessation on the part of the members of this Institute and

the practitioners of our school outside of this organization, of controversy and dispute upon the matters of difference to which reference has been made, and to urge our medical journals to refuse to publish articles of a general or personal nature calculated to breed dissension in our ranks.

Our school is not in danger from those who, styling themselves "regulars," have been for nearly seventy-five years, by fair and foul means, endeavoring to arrest its progress. Notwithstanding this abuse our members have steadily increased and are still constantly increasing. But little more than half a century has passed since Dr. Gram, the pioneer of homoeopathy in America, first located in this country. Our system has grown in popularity till now six thousand physicians practice in accordance with our law or perhaps, speaking more accurately, to the best of their ability in accordance with our law-in the United States alone, and we learn from the report of our Bureau of Registration and Statistics that we have eleven Homœopathic Medical Colleges, thirty-eight Homœopathic Hospitals, twenty-nine Dispensaries, twenty-three State Societies, ninety-two Local Societies, and some sixteen Homœopathic Medical Journals; and in addition to all this, although homœopathy is not credited with the change, our method of treatment is being generally adopted by the advanced members of the opposing school.

If the statement made by your President for the year 1879, and received by this Institute, that "one who only occasionally prescribes homoeopathically is a homoeopathist" is accepted, our number would be more than quadrupled. Taking this statement and that of the editor of the Medical Record, probably the most popular and influential of the old school medical journals in this country, in its issue of May 7th, 1881, in the response to the question, What constitutes a regular practitioner? it is difficult to draw the line between the homoeopathic and so-called regular physician. That editor says: "Our correspondent's inquiry is a little difficult to answer, in the absence of any distinct and authorized declaration on the part of the prominent medical associations of this country. The code of ethics is silent on the subject, and so far as we are aware the American Medical Association has never given a definition of the