find patients differ much as regards the amount requisite to influence them. One patient, if not very sick, may do well enough with the specific form of medicine, five or ten drops of a specific tincture to four ounces of water, teaspoonful doses. While this does not materially assist nature in her effort to throw off the indisposition yet it does not interfere with the vis medicatrix naturæ. But he who needs your aid may require as much at a dose, of a reliable fluid extract, as the former contained in the whole amount. Each and all of us believe in giving as little medicine as will effect our object, but whe that is alive to the interest of the patient, thinks of relying upon medicines watered to impotency?

Does Specific Medication teach us anything new in the administration of small doses, that Homœopathy has not already handled with more grace? Certainly not.

In order to use Specific Medication successfully, it is claimed that we must be familiar with Specific Diagnosis. A thorough study of.the anatomy and physiology of the body in health and disease, is one of the pre-requisites of a medical education, and no one is considered competent to commence. the study of Therapeutics until he has thoroughly mastered these fundamental branches of the science of medicine. Pathological anatomy presents the same facts for the medical student, whether studied by Allopathist, Homœopathist or Eclectic; and the facts deducted from these researches, which so materiąlly aid us in the correct diagnosis of disease, are alike for all the same. What then is meant by Specific Diagnosis, and does it differ from the commonly-accepted sense of the term diagnosis, which means "the art of discriminating disease ? ” Has the author defined a course whereby we may more clearly discern morbid action, than by the one accepted by science? Are not all truly-educated physicians capable of making a correct diagnosis, and able to appreciate the value of the specific action of a drug, to antagonize morbid action if they find it? Why is such stress laid upon Specific diagnosis? The principles laid down in it do not materially differ from thoughts held by other medical writers; take, for instance, Williams'

Principles of Medicine, where all these principles are clearly and definitely defined.

In Volume VI. of the Transactions of the National Eclectic Medical Association, Prof. Scudder, speaking of the past, in his article on Eclecticism in Medicine, says: "But a time came when Eclectics began to defer to authority, and when they commenced to flatter themselves that they had the best system of medicine under the sun. Then physicians were referred to Beach, to Morrow, to Jones, to King, to learn medicine, and if one chanced to go outside of these worthies, he was denounced in unstinted language. Eclecticism was crystallizing in the same rigid forms as its predecessor, and was becoming as lifeless, though hardly so cruel." How does this compare with the provisions in the by-laws of the newly-organized society in Tennessee, which declares that "no physician shall be received as a member of this association unless he is known to be Eclectic, and a strong supporter and advocate of Eclectic Medicine and Specific Medication, as taught by our reputable medical colleges?"

Does this not very closely resemble the "crystallization" denounced by Prof. Scudder on the one hand, yet encouraged on the other?

To choose from all sources the good, is the broad platform of Liberal medicine. If you are convinced by experience that Specific or any other medication is good, you have the right, the privilege, to use it; but if you feel that it does not answer your purpose, you have the same right to discard it. Yet you are just as true an Eclectic in either case, and no one has the power to call you otherwise, because of your belief or unbelief, so long as you use the good and discard the bad.

I, as a student of the Eclectic Medical Institute of Cincinnati, was educated in the belief that Specific Medication would give me a sure relief of human suffering, and the theory was so different from any I had previously heard while a student of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, that at first I was astonished that there had been found this specific action of drugs. I graduated with the belief that these specifics would surely cure my patients, and that to practice medicine with

them would be a very easy and pleasant thing. I went out to meet the giant disease, with as much assurance as David did when he took the single stone to combat the great Goliath, but I was not so successful with the single remedy theory as David was with the single stone. Yet I had just as much faith, and aimed my remedy as directly, for I had been trained by Prof. Scudder himself, daily examined by him, and finally introduced by him to the world as one competent in this theory, to which he attested by his autograph on my diploma.

As I became engrossed with professional cares, and witnessed the repeated failure of these specifics, my eyes were opened to the fallacy of my belief. I discovered that I had been looking through a glass darkly. The scales of delusion had fallen from my eyes and I saw the facts face to face. I had detected how little of scientific value there was in this hypothesis.

A STUDY OF OUR REMEDIES.

By A. B. WOODWARD, M. D., Tunkhannock, Penn.

It was the remark of a wise man: "He who thinks most writes least." Certainly the sages whose names have been held up to our veneration from remote antiquity, left little or nothing of "posthumous works." Confucius whom everybody praises, Buddha-Gautama, Jesus, Pythagoras, Socrates and other shapers of the world's thinking, taught every thing orally. "The Great Spirit speaks,” replied the Indian orator to a missionary; "we hear his voice in the purling stream and in the rustling forest; but he does not write!"

Is it any wonder since thinking men write little, that so much that is written is merely echo! Certainly, very much that has been written concerning the therapeutic action of medicine is either copied, theoretical, taken for granted, or only guess-work.

Why is it that certain practitioners of medicine cannot observe the same results which others assert positively and even

vehemently that they do, from particular remedies? Doctor A actually obtains therapeutic effects, when Doctor B, under apparently similar conditions cannot. Is it because the effect is produced in reality by and from the person who employs the remedy? ❤

What we want in medical practice is certainty in the action of remedies. In our present nomenclature of medicine we have anything but certainty,-any amount of hearsay, theoretical guess-work, and "said-to-be." It will do to echo with; one truth is worth volumes of guess-work.

The design in this paper is to treat of the few remedies named and their positive action. It is especially necessary to be able to estimate the degree of vital energy, and what is required under the conditions. The physician too often assumes the place of the vital force; takes its functions into his own hands; turns it out and sends it, together with the patient whither neither may return to divulge facts, and tell tales.

This thing at least is evident; that the therapeutic action depends greatly upon the preparing, but much more upon the condition of the remedy prepared. A large proportion of the "new remedies" crowded upon the market, may be set down truthfully as little better than nothing, actually inferior to water. One reason for this inertness is, the keeping of the crude material on hand for a long time before using it.

For example, it is often the practice to keep the roots of gelsemium in the shops dried and exposed to the air, till the peculiar aroma is dissipated. They are then employed in the manufacturing of the popular fluid extract. What effect can be expected from such a preparation? Let the root be taken in the green condition as it comes from the native soil, and cut up moderately fine, then placed in a well-stoppered jar, covered over with pure spirits and suffered to macerate ten or twelve days. After this, remove the stopper, pour off and

* "Many herbs," says Van Helmont, "acquire from the imagination of those who gather them, an extraordinary power." This writer taught that the physi cian by his will imparted a peculiar virtue to medicines; and he also states that he himself experienced different sensations from the use of aconite on one occasion than at any subsequent time.

filter the liquor, and then place it in a glass jar tightly corked. This preparation will give off the right odor, reflect the right shade of light, and exercise the right effect on the nervous system of the patient, when properly administered. Three drops of such a medicine is worth more in therapeutics than as many pints of various fluid extracts of gelsemium which I have seen. Hence, many have declared that they had never seen any benefit from the article. They had employed it-—a substance expressed from the dead body after the vital principle had left it.

I will now treat of what I will call the Reliable Saturated Tincture of the green root of gelsemium. I would recommend it for an irritable condition of the nervous system, or a condition of excitement indicated by a quick, small, excitable pulse, an excitable state of mind, nervous pains, spasms from irritation, contraction of the pupil of the eye, infantile convulsions accompanied by such contraction and quick pulse, contraction of the os uteri at the menstrual or parturient period, etc.

Such a condition may be produced by blood-poisoning, or a septic condition of the fluids of the body. In such cases while employing gelsemium, we should add another positive remedy for sepsis. I suggest Eucalyptus globulus. A reliable tincture of this plant can be made by macerating eight ounces of the leaves dried and ground, for two weeks in a pint of alcohol of ninety-five proof. I have been misrepresented and insulted by persons, the professed disciples of Beach and Morrow, for my faith in the utility of employing high positive remedies. Nevertheless, I will assure intelligent practitioners that they have in Eucalyptus a preventive of sepsis and a remedy for it. I would administer it for any condition which was indicated by the determination of poisonous matter to the tonsils, as in the "so-called disease, diphtheria." The poison in the blood and its characteristic exudation, are eradicated. It will effectually prevent erysipelas in wounds or amputations, and is the best dressing for them, as well as for fetid sores, vaginal catarrh, etc. It will also control periodic conditions resultant upon blood-poisoning, when quinia and