what a multitude still exist! The mind is a manifestation of the lifeforce acting on the most intricate, delicate, and highly organized structure known (the human brain). It is sensitive, it acts along certain lines, it is easily influenced.

We are all superstitious; we all believe in the occult, in the supernatural; it is taught us from our infancy, it has shaped our minds, it has become human nature, it is the result of conditions which have existed for all time, conditions which will continue to exist. Who can say that the moral or physical advancement of mankind has been retarded by it? It is a pretty good old world in spite of all, and most of us want to stay on it as long as we can; it will probably be much the same after we leave it.

It is our duty to relieve man and to keep him as well and happy as it is possible for him to be, and make him stay on earth as long as we can; that is what our patients employ us for, what we are paid for. If we are conscientious physicians, we must employ all available means to this end. We should study and investigate to add our mite to our scanty supply of true remedies. In spite of all our best endeavors we must sometimes fail.

As the great procession of seeming absurdities passes by, let us turn upon it the searchlight of scientific research (Christian science, faith, mind, clairvoyant, and magnetic healers, the Indian with his medicinehat and tom-toms, the homeopath with his high potencies, the Keeley curist with his tinsel, serum-therapy with its hypodermic injections, the hypnotist with his passes, trances, and suggestions, and the ten thousand and one fads which are in the miracle business). If there is a grain of precious metal in the dust it raises, let us save it. When Nathanael asked, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" he little thought that from that hamlet one should come whose teachings would influence the minds of men for all time, whose code of ethics would abide with man and become the moving power of civilization.

PORTLAND, Ore.

OBITUARY.—Dr. H. P. C. Wilson, a distinguished gynecologist of Baltimore, died at his home December 27, 1897. Dr. Wilson was born in 1827 and graduated from the University of Virginia in 1848. He was instrumental in founding the Maryland Hospital for Women, was at one time Vice-President of the American Gynecological Society, and was a frequent and well-known contributor to medical literature.-Philadelphia Medical Journal.

Reports of Societies.

LOUISVILLE MEDICO-CHIRURGICAL SOCIETY.*

Stated Meeting, January 28, 1898, the President, F. C. Wilson, M. D., in the chair. Salivary Calculus. Dr. S. G. Dabney: This specimen is a small salivary calculus which was found wedged in one of the salivary ducts, and which was easily removed by incising the duct of Wharton. A young lady came to my office two weeks ago complaining of a great deal of pain upon swallowing, also pain in the submaxillary region; she said that the gland in this region would become swollen during eating, and after remaining so a short time would apparently empty itself. Putting my finger in her mouth I had no difficulty in detecting a little hard concretion in the duct mentioned. Opening it carefully I found this little calculus which was wedged in the duct near its orifice.

I believe salivary calculi are not very common, and in this case it is rather remarkable how much pain seemed to be present from such a small concretion.

Discussion. Dr. W. O. Roberts: I remember to have seen but one case of salivary calculi, and this occurred in an old gentleman from whom I removed two calculi each about the size of an army bean.

Dr. Wm. Cheatham: I have seen three or four cases such as Dr. Dabney has reported; some of the calculi were as large as pigeon eggs and gave a great deal of trouble. I have never had the patients complain of pain upon swallowing; this is a symptom not familiar to me in this connection. In removing such calculi stricture of the duct occasionally follows; this I have had following their removal.

Grain of Wheat in the Auditory Canal. Dr. Wm. Cheatham: I wish to show a grain of wheat removed recently from the auditory canal. A young lady fifteen years of age came to see me from the country, having had earache off and on for two years. In examining the ear I discovered this grain of wheat lying in the canal; she said she had no idea how long it had been there. It was easily removed by means of a small syringe and warm water. It was simply lying loose in the canal, not

*Stenographically reported for this journal by C. C. Mapes, Louisville, Ky.

being adherent at all. The case illustrates how long foreign bodies may remain in the ear without giving rise to any serious trouble. This grain of wheat had probably been in the ear since the patient was a young child. Her earache was entirely relieved after removal of the foreign body.

Operation for Gall-Stones. Dr. A. M. Vance: Some time ago I reported to this society a gall-stone operation, the patient being a woman who had given birth to twins four weeks before, who had a great deal of fever following delivery, with a tumor in the region of the gall-bladder. She had been under the observation of Dr. Roberts during the early part of her pregnancy. The symptoms passed away and he did not operate. Dr. Roberts was out of the city and I was called to see the patient. At that time I opened an abscess near the gall-bladder, and from this sac removed twenty-three stones as well as a quantity of pus, then stitched the sac to the abdominal parietes. I did not open the gall-bladder at that time. The wound healed promptly and the patient went home. In the course of two or three months there was a spontaneous opening and seven more small stones came away. The wound healed the second time. Some months later another spontaneous opening occurred with the discharge of several more stones.

Evidently the case was originally one of spontaneous rupture of the gall-bladder; an abscess formed, this being nature's conservative method of protection, and the gall-stones were thus discharged.

It is the only case of the kind that I have ever seen, and I thought it of sufficient interest to make this report.

Discussion. Dr. W. O. Roberts: I saw the patient a few days before Dr. Vance operated, and advised immediate operation, but they postponed it. I then left the city and Dr. Vance was called in, as he has stated. At my examination I thought the gall-bladder was greatly distended. I could outline it distinctly. I was afraid it might rupture, and advised both the patient and the family physician of the danger; but the patient and her husband would not consent to the operation at that time.

Gunshot Wound of the Leg; Amputation. Dr. W. O. Roberts: I saw yesterday a man aged eighty-one years - a very active man for his age, both mentally and physically. He is proprietor of a store in a neighboring town; and, always being in dread of thieves breaking into

the store and robbing him, he set a trap for them. His store is not very large, and a counter extends the entire length of it. There is a narrow passage-way at each end so that he can get behind it. He arranged an old musket at each end of this counter, hung so that any one stepping into the passage-way would fire the gun. Several months ago he himself went in one night, having forgotten all about the muskets being so arranged, and one of them was discharged, the load passing between his legs, doing no damage. Yesterday morning when he went to open the store- having forgotten about the trap he had laid for robbers the night before- he started to go in behind the counter. The gun was discharged, the entire load striking him just about at the juncture of the upper with the middle third of the leg, tearing almost the entire leg away at that point. It was hanging by little shreds of skin in front and behind. The bones were divided.

I saw him about two hours after receipt of the injury; there was little shock apparently; he was perfectly at himself; loss of blood had not been very great, as an improvised tourniquet had been applied immediately just below the knee. I amputated the leg at once above the knee. After the operation was over he soon came to himself from the effects of the chloroform, and the first thing he wanted to know was what we were going to do with his leg. I told him it was for him to decide what should be done with it. He said that he wanted to put it in a jar and preserve it. I explained to him that it was too badly. mangled to think of preserving it, and he then said, "Bring it in here and let me see it." After looking at it he said, "Well, doctor, I guess we will have to bury it."

He stood the operation as well as anybody I ever saw, although he is eighty-one years of age. I have not heard from him since the operation.

Peculiar Accident from Wearing Glasses. Dr. S. G. Dabney: Ten days ago a young lady, aged seventeen years, was going home from school, wearing her eye-glasses, when she met with an accident in a rather unusual way. Some boys across the street were throwing rocks at each other; one of the rocks struck the young lady's glasses, driving a large piece of glass directly into her eyeball; it was almost the size of a five cent piece, triangular in shape, and entered exactly in the ciliary region. Fortunately it did not touch the lens. The glass was evidently clean, and although the wound was quite an extensive one no serious.

inflammation has so far resulted. There has been very little inflammation, and her sight continues good.

Of course in wounds of this character there is always a certain amount of danger, and the question of enucleation always presents itself. Every wound in the ciliary region of the eye is dangerous; still, in view of the fact that in this case the lens was uninjured and that the inflammatory symptoms are so slight, and since her sight promises to be only slightly impaired, I have decided to leave the eye in. I mention the case as being rather a rare form of injury to the eye.

Discussion. Dr. William Cheatham: It seems to me that in Dr. Dabney's case I would give a bad or rather a guarded prognosis as to the sight of the injured eye. Very likely a slow form of cyclitis will supervene and the eye will shrink. There are several things which should be taken into consideration before giving a prognosis, especially as regards the effect of the injury upon the opposite eye. The intelligence of the patient has a great deal to do with it. If she is intelligent enough to watch for inflammatory conplications, this will have considerable bearing upon the case. The financial condition of the patient also has a great deal to do with it: if she was a poor girl we would take out the eye much sooner than if the patient had plenty of money, a rich girl being much more able to lose one or both eyes than a poor one; and again the latter is more able to give the time to combat the inflammation. Proximity to the oculist is another important thing. If the girl lived in the country and could not be watched closely, I would be more likely to advise enucleation. Of course Dr. Dabney is correct in this instance, even if there were some inflammatory symptoms, in leaving the eye intact, because she recovered so promptly after receipt of the injury. I prophesy, however, that there will ultimately be some shrinking of the globe, as this is the almost invariable result where there is a wound from a foreign body passing through the ciliary region.

Dr. T. C. Evans: A number of years ago I saw a case similar to the one reported by Dr. Dabney, except that the wound was immediately in the center of the cornea, cutting entirely through the cornea vertically, with prolapse of the iris. A young lady who wore glasses in stooping over struck her glasses on the post of a chair driving a piece of glass into her eye. I was then in the office with Dr. Reynolds and only saw the patient once, but she was under his care for some