« PreviousContinue »
“ But there are some other points of a local character that arouse thought. The great State of New York, with more than 60,000 square miles and millions of inhabitants, the first State on this continent to introduce homeopathy, from a large and prosperous body of practitioners, has 285. Pennsylvania, almost as large and prosperous, which for more than half a century has sustained a flourishing school founded on our principles, has 190 members; while Massachusetts, which might have been cut off from either of these States without essentially diminishing their greatness, has 184. Illinois, in its growing magnitude and with its six homeopathic colleges, makes a close second to either Massachusetts or Pennsylvania with 160 members. But Ohio, in all its great wealth, intelligence, and rapid growth, its two homeopathic colleges, one of which has flourished for more than half a century, drops in membership to 102.
“ Thus we might go on with all the other States and territories, nearly all of which are represented in the Institute, and get suggestions from each. But the question arises, Has any one of these States fulfilled its entire obligation to this Institute, which has done so much to organize and strengthen the power of homeopathy? Massachusetts, which leads the list in its proportionate number of members, has yet 600 homeopathic physicians who are not members, but could easily afford to be such. Supposing a like interest in all the
other States were to prevail, what might we not hope for from the increased influence exerted ?
“ Let us hope that the next meeting of the Institute at Atlantic City may show progress in numbers of workers as well as in the quality of work done."
EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.
The following communication explains itself and, we are sure, will interest our readers :
Dear Doctor, — With this I send you a copy of the Congressional Record for March 3, containing the full report of the action of the House of Representatives on the Hahnemann Monument Bill, which was very unexpectedly defeated, as, having passed the Senate in desirable shape, our committee had reason to feel assured it would meet with no opposition in the House.
Senator Gallinger writes: I was greatly surprised at the action of the House, but do not despair of a favorable result next time Holding myself in readiness to serve you at any time, know me to be,
J. H. GALLINGER. Representative Dalzell writes: I was very much surprised at the opposition to the passage of the Hahnemann Monument Bill. I had not anticipated any opposition; and I do not believe that if the matter were properly worked up there could, by any possibility, be any opposition to it. I think the suggestion that you should thoroughly ventilate the question in your journals and societies is a good one. It would not be out of the way that you should publish generally the little debate that took place on the subject. I have no doubt at all that when Congress meets again we can pass the bill if we use proper efforts in the meantime. You may count on me to do all I can towards securing ultimate success, which I have no doubt at all we will secure.
JOHN DALZELL. It is a significant fact, as stated in the press dispatches, that the leader of the opposition was a former allopathic doctor.
The committee hopes you will give much publicity to this matter by publishing details as fully as your space will allow, as well as commenting thereon.
HENRY M. SMITH.
MONUMENT TO SAMUEL HAHNEMANN.
MR. DALZELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass Senate joint resolution 48, granting permission for the erection of a monument in Washington, D. C., for the ornamentation of the national capital and in honor of Samuel Hahnemann.
The joint resolution was read, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That permission be, and the same is hereby, granted the Hahnemann Monument Committee of the American Institute of Homeopathy to erect a monument in honor of Samuel Hahnemann in such place in the city of Washington, D.C., other than the Capitol or Library Grounds, as shall be designated by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, the chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, and the chairman of the Monument Committee; and the sum of $4.000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the building of a foundation upon which to place said monument; said monument to be presented to the people of the United States by the American Institute of Homeopathy, kindred associations, and citizens.
MR. BAILEY. I demand a second on that.
By unanimous consent, on motion of Mr. Dalzell, a second was considered as ordered.
MR. DALZELL. Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution is identical in terms, with a single exception, with one that was passed in the last Congress, but which went to the President too late to receive his signature. The difference between this resolution and that consists only in the fact that in this resolution the Chief of Engineers is designated as one of the parties who shall select the site, whereas in the former resolution the party in charge of the Library building was so designated; and he was so designated because General Casey in his lifetime was an enthusiastic advocate of the placing of this monument upon the Library ground.
The members of the Senate Committee are opposed to putting any monuments of any kind in the Library grounds. Hence the change in the resolution.
Now, the ground upon which it seems to me this joint resolution ought to pass is a double one. In the first place, as a work of art this monument is finer by far than anything of the kind in the national capital. It has passed the scrutiny of a committee of sculptors and a committee of architects of the United States. It has been secured at a cost of $75,000, and it is a complete monument in itself. No money is asked for the pedestal. The pedestal accompanies the monument, and all that is asked for is such an appropriation as will build the foundation. It may be a few hundred dollars, it may be a thousand dollars; it cannot exceed $4,000. I have here at my desk some pictures that will give members of the House, if they desire, a conception of the character of this monument.
In the second place, I put it upon the ground that the subject of the monument is one who is worthy to be honored in the national capital. In a country like ours, made up of citizens representing every clime and race, it is entirely appropriate that men of genius of whatever nationality shall be recognized, and the great mass of the homeopathic following in this country who have subscribed this immense amount of money, $75,000, are certainly entitled to so much space upon the public grounds of the national capital as will afford an opportunity to place a monument there. I cannot for the life of me see how there can be any objection to this proposition.
MR. BAILEY. Mr. Speaker, to me the objection to this is twofold, or rather, one objection grows out of the other. I very seriously doubt if either in the grounds of the Capitol or in the Capitol itself there should be placed the statue or the picture of any person who has not been connected with the service of the government. It seems to me that that is the true line of distinction, and when you go outside of it and admit to this privilege men of the various professions and pursuits in life, you must sooner or later involve yourselves in the controversies between the rival schools of medicine and law and .theology, and those other pursuits which, though useful, are still not connected with the government.
It seems to me that this Capitol and these grounds, dedicated as they are to the great purposes of the government, ought to be reserved in all respects for those who have served and those who are to serve the people in a chosen capacity. If that be true, then it certainly follows that the government ought not to appropriate money for such a purpose. I believe, if these gentlemen came bearing this as a gift, and asking no dollar from the public Treasury, that they ought not to be permitted to place in the grounds or in the building the representation, either in marble or on canvas, of men who have had no connection with the government.
Mr. Speaker, this, in brief, is my objection. Now I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery].
MR. DOCKERY. Mr. Speaker, the statement of the gentleman from Texas makes it unnecessary to add anything else to what may be said in opposition to this bill. He has stated the whole “law and gospel,” so far as it relates to the proposition now pending. Up to this time the government of the United States has never appropriated a dollar, as I remember, for the foundation of any such monument.
MR. DALzELL. The gentleman is mistaken.
MR. Dockery. If so, it ought not to have been done. Congress should not appropriate for any monument to a citizen, I care not how distinguished, unless that citizen was connected in some way with the civil or military service of the United States.
DR. DALzELL. The gentleman is mistaken.
MR. Dockery. The gentleman from Texas stated the correct policy. If I remember aright, the amount asked for is larger than ever asked for a like purpose.
MR. DALzELL. No.
MR. DOCKERY. And as I recall it and the gentleman from Iowa is before me, and if I am mistaken can correct me
we appropriated $2,500 for the pedestal of the Sherman monument.
MR. HENDERSON. I think it was more than that.
MR. Dockery. My recollection is that we appropriated $2,500 for the Sherman monument, and also $2,500 for the pedestal of the Hancock monument.
Mr. HENDERSON. I have just come in, and I have not got my mind on the matter before the House, but I am under the impression that it was $10,000 in each case.
MR. DOCKERY. I think I am right; but that is not material. This appropriation is for a foundation for a monument. Now, then, if it be proper at all to pass the bill, certainly the generous contributors to the fund that has been raised to build this monument should complete the entire work, and not ask the government to donate $4,000 for the foundation. But I do not rest my opposition on the appropriation asked, although I think it is unwarranted. It is against the policy I protest. If we are to enter upon the work of recognizing distinguished citizens in this way, who have not been connected with the public service, then, as the gentleman from