should recur, it would be advisable to have recourse to puncturing the membranes and induce labor. By way of comparison, I shall here enumerate most of the local remedies hitherto used in uterine hemorrhage; namely, the tampon, compression, friction, galvanism or electricity, ice, injection of hot and cold water, cold water applied to the vulva, cold douche on the abdomen, pressure on the abdominal aorta; and last, but not least, the injection of liquor ferri perchloridi. Most of these require appatus for their application which may not always be at hand; and, in addition, some time would be taken in their preparation and administration. Furthermore there is the always present danger of injecting a styptic into the open mouths of the uterine vessels; also cold applications, when the body is already too cold, must be injurious. Now, iron alum does not require any apparatus, or any preparation, as it is already at hand; it will bring on immediate contraction of the uterus, which is the chief aim and object in the treatment of these cases; as remarked before, it does not require to be introduced into the uterus, only into the vagina, close to the os uteri, and there left. The preparation is both cheap and effectual.-American Practitioner.

Horsford's Acid Phosphate in Mental and Physical Exhaustion, Nervousness and Diminished Vitality.

Dr. C. M. Lindley, Brooklyn, Ind., says: "I have given Horsford's Acid Phosphate a fair trial in mental and physical exhaustion, nervousness, diminished vitality, and in the tedious convalescence from typhoid fever. It has more than realized my expectations in the above-named diseases. I should advise the

profession to keep it on hand.”

Soluble Sugar-Coated Pills.

I have used William R. Warner & Co.'s Sugar-Coated Pills for more than fifteen years, and I do not hesitate to say that, in respect of solubility, they are superior to any coated pills I have ever tried, not excepting those coated with gelatine. They possess one quality which I do not find in most other pills, viz.: a moist condition of the cnclosed ingredients.

ROBERT HUBBARD, M. D.

EDITORIAL.

Medical Legislation.

In a recent number of the Eclectic Medical Journal, Prof. King took issue with us regarding the policy we ought to pursue, as eclectics, in the establishment and support of State Boards of Health and Examining Boards. We had advocated the organization of state boards; had favored special medical legislation, not merely as matters of policy, but because we really favored them, and we had given our reasons therefor in papers written for THE AMERICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL. Prof. King had previously written an essay on Medical Legislation, which he had read at the National Eclectic Medical Association in Cincinnati, and the positions we took differed so widely from those advocated by him, that he thought it best to notice us.

Prof. King's reply appeared in the Eclectic Medical Journal, and the substance of this paper was sent to Prof. Scudder for publication in his Journal, as a rejoinder to Prof. King. Here is Prof. Scudder's reply to us:

"CINCINNATI, O., DEC. 8, 1884. DR. GEO. C. PITZER, My Dear Sir:-We have closed the subject of Medical Legislation in our Journal, unless something We cannot afford space for it, and no In five years from now you will probably

very new comes up. good can come of it. believe as we do.

Yours,

JOHN M. SCUDDER."

This snubs us, of course, and leaves us to use our own JOURNAL for both sides of the argument. We thought, as we had so generously admitted the paper of Prof. King in reply to Prof. Younkin, in our JOURNAL, and as Prof. King had made a direct strike at us in the E. M. Journal, that we should have a chance to reply through the journal where we were attacked. Comment is unnecessary.

In our papers we had advocated equal rights and privileges for all, and asked no favors shown us that were not granted to

We plead for laws that might rid us-all branches of the medical profession-of pretending imposters. We held that the tendency of Prof. King's essay was toward evil results; that the quacks could not ask for better support; and that the regulars wanted no better evidence of our quackish proclivities than the special pleading of this veteran and leader, Prof. King, and especially when supported by the action of the National Eclectic Medical Association. As evidence of the correctness of these views, regarding the evil results of this essay, we have only to refer to the character of many of its supporters. Since the reading and publication of this essay the traveling and advertising quacks all over this country have taken it up, and Prof. King's opinions are sought, cherished and widely heralded by this class of men, and especially by Dr. W. H. Hale, the editor of Health and Home, a man whom we have learned to avoid in every way, and whose paper sustains everything but a reputable character. All this is unfortunate, to say the least, for Prof. King is no quack, and all who know him admire his ability and accomplishments. It is to be greatly regretted that he advocates such a damaging and destructive policy, for his reputation as a good man, able teacher and author, gives character to his essay; and while traveling quacks read and quote Prof, King with great pleasure, it is also true that his essay has many honest, earnest and intelligent supporters-too many of this class for the good of the eclectic cause. These men seem to look at Prof. King only; and because he says so, they think it must be so. They do not seem to think for one moment that a wise man may occasionally make a mistake. The facts are these: Prof. King, in his ardour for freedom and hatred of old-schoolism, has taken most extreme grounds, and urges a policy not at all suited to the times nor the emergencies of the case. He does not seem to realize that the issues now before us are quite different from those in the early days of eclecticism; and that the character of the opposition is very different also. But if Prof. King and the advocates of his essay persistently pursue the course they have marked out, they will soon realize that they have been paving the way to their own funerals.

It is no longer a question whether we shall have State Boards

of Health or not, for we already have them in twenty-seven states, and wherever they are tested the courts are deciding in favor of their constitutionality, and their legal rights to regulate the practice of medicine. We may cry oppression, plead for freedom, and ridicule the course taken by certain boards of health, and from our stand-point our arguments may appear unanswerable; but in dealing with this supposed wrong, we should realize that we meet a living thing, possessing formidable dimensions, immense power and influence, and if we would obtain anything like our just deserts, we must do what we know we can do, and not attempt to accomplish unreasonable results by abusing the authorities, black-guarding boards of health, and damning every professed eclectic in the profession who dares to advocate a policy different from that recommended by some of our leaders.

We may talk as much as we please about the Allopathic origin and selfish objects of these boards of health, and we may tell of the indifference on the part of the people regarding their organization, and we may utter a great many truths, but there are some things that we cannot deny: no matter if Allopaths did exert themselves in organizing these boards, we have them, and the very men that urged their formation will spend their time and means to sustain them, and the majority being largely on this side of the question, the chances, to say the least, are greatly in their favor. Again, it matters not whether the people wanted or asked for protective boards or not, they are now organized, they are in active operation and sustained by the courts, and instead of the people being indifferent to their presence, since their organization, they are waking up in interest, and a large majority of the people are in sympathy with boards of health, and will aid in their support, especially when they find that at least nine-tenths of the physicians in the country are in favor of them.

Now, knowing all this to be true, the only question for us to settle, as Eclectic physicians, is the best course to pursue in order that we may have a fair representation in all State Boards of Health, or Examining Boards, as the case may be. For us to argue against the establishment of health boards, or

work for their abolishment, would be lost time. We had just as well go back and advocate the propriety and policy of yet electing St. John to the Presidency of the United Sates, and putting Cleveland out; and all the big strikes of Profs. King, Adolphus and Wilder are as puerile as an arugment like this would be. They are out of time and place. These old veterans certainly think they are still living away back in the early days of Eclecticism. Do they not know that the great majority of the people and physicians are favorable to these State Boards, and that the government, through her courts, sustains them, and that their popularity is increasing daily? These are the facts, nevertheless, and we can only work for amendments, and make vigorous efforts for fair representation and just treatment. And if we behave ourselves properly-don't make fools of ourselves-we need have no fears about obtaining justice. To be sure, as in all cases where the odds is great, individuals, and even whole communities, may suffer from. oppressions for a time, but justice will finally prevail. However indifferent any people may be about the establishment of any law, they will not tolerate, for any considerable length of time, the unjust treatment of deserving individuals, nor suffer innocent people to be imposed upon by the execution of unjust laws. If we conduct ourselves in a manner that will insure the respect and earn the confidence of the people in the community where we live, each of us, no matter what may come, we cannot be hurt very much. But if we resist or defy existing laws, refuse to be governed by the same rules that are imposed upon other schools of medicine, then the authorities will be inclined to be distrustful of us; and they ought to be.

Unless we show ourselves worthy, willing and obedient, we cannot expect public offices or positions of trust; and the chances are that we may suffer evil consequences if we discourage and labor to embarrass State Boards of Health. If we use our means and employ our talents to break them down, instead of laboring to sustain them and make them what we think they really should be, we need not expect any representation upon them, for we can never get it. And it is very certain that unless a different policy from that marked out by Prof. King, and seconded by