'« ;. i "' (■{11111 ■ ’lifrl ■ ■ , ' . . i *?. 5: r > * • a ** # • t . . - . : * : I , ' . ; - . Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/reportofevidenceOObart REPORT OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE OF JOHN STEPHEN BARTLETT, M. D. VERSUS THE MASS. MEDICAL SOCIETY, AS GIVEN BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE, AT THE SESSION OP 1839. PRINTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, BY ORDER OF THE HOUSE. IS o si 1a u : DUTTON AND WENTWORTH, STATE PRINTERS. 1 S3 9 2 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. <£ommowtocalttj of SHnsgacJjusctts. ♦ House of Representatives, March 7, 1839. Ordered, That Messrs. Stone, of Beverly, Hinckley, of Barnstable,' Greene, of Nae Bedford, Cushman, of Bcrnardstnn, Smith, of North Bridgewater, Pratt, of Middleborough, Rix, of Marblehead, constitute a Committee on the Memorial of John Stephen Bartlett, M. D. L. S. CUSHING, Clerk. Commontocalt!) of iSfassacfjttsetts. House of Representatives, April 10, 1839. Ordered, That the report on the petition of John Stephen Bartlett, be printed under the direction of the Chairman of the Committee, and that the subject of the said petition be referred to the next General Court. L. S. CUSHING, Clerk. 3e /?cy J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 3 REPORT. The Committee to whom was referred the Memorial of John Stephen Bartlett, M. D., praying that the charter of the Massachusetts Medical Society “ may be declared void, and that he may obtain such redress of his grievan¬ ces” as the Legislature “alone can afford,” ask leave to state, that they have, with unwearied patience, and with much exposure of health by protracted night sessions, at¬ tended to the investigation of the subject. Ten meetings were held. The first and second were preliminary. The third was devoted to Dr. Bartlett’s opening. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh were occupied in hearing testimony introduced by him. The eighth was a meet¬ ing for consultation merely. And the ninth and tenth were improved by the respondents. The subject was thus closed, but the parties having stated, that they had other testimony which time did not suffice them to intro¬ duce, nor the Committee to hear, the chairman was di¬ rected by the unanimous voice of the Committee, to re¬ port the evidence in the case, as presented, rather than express an official opinion on its merits. The testimony is written out from copious notes.* * Before placing the manuscript of this report in the hands of the printers, the testimony of the principal witnesses was submitted to them for exami¬ nation, viz.: Drs. Bartlett, Walker, Lewis, Jackson, Reynolds, Pierson, Briggs, and Mr, Dutton. They severally expressed their approbation of its correctness. Time and circumstances prevented its submittal to the other witnesses. 4 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. March 12, 1839. Committee met in Lobby No. 11, for primary consul¬ tation. Directed tbe chairman to report an order of no¬ tice for the appearance of the Massachusetts Medical Society, 20th inst., to show cause why the prayer of John Stephen Bartlett, M. D., should not be granted. Adjourned . J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 5 Wednesday, March 20, 1839. The Committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members present. The following gentlemen appeared as a committee in behalf of the Massachusetts Medical Society, viz : Drs. James Jackson, George C. Shattuck, Rufus Wyman , John Homans, S. D. Townsend. Pcleg Sprague, Esq. appeared as council for the Mas¬ sachusetts Medical Society, and entered the following protest against further proceedings in the case : To the Honorable the General Court of the Common¬ wealth of Massachusetts: Respectfully represent the Massachusetts Medical So¬ ciety, that they were incorporated by an act of the General Court, passed in the year 1781, and were duly organized, and have ever since continued a body corpo¬ rate under said act: that on Thursday, the fourteenth day of March, instant, their president was served with a copy of the petition of John Stephen Bartlett, and of the order of the General Court thereon, that they should ap¬ pear on this twentieth day of March, to show cause why their charter should not be declared void. And now the said Massachusetts Medical Society, with entire and pro¬ found respect for the General Court, suggest to vour honorable body, that no power is reserved in and by said act of incorporation to annul, alter, or in any manner to affect the same ; and said society hereby most respectfully- J. S. BARTLE'iT’S CASE. 6 * object and protest, that the honorable the General Court have no power to annul, or alter, or in any manner im¬ pair the charter of said society, and against the exercise or attempted exercise of any such power. And said society interpose this objection and protest from a solemn sense of duty to their founders and to posterity, lest any acquiescence now should be drawn into precedent hereaf¬ ter, and not from any want of entire confidence in the present General Court, or any reluctance to meet the said petition or application of said Bartlett. And if the honorable the General Court shall overrule this objection and protest, and, notwithstanding the same, require the said society to answer to said petition or application of said Bartlett, they will hold themselves in readiness to do so at the earliest practicable time, not, however, waiv¬ ing, nor in any manner impairing, this objection and protest. Boston, March 20, 1839. JAMES JACKSON, GEO. C. SHAT TUCK, RUFUS WYMAN, JOHN HOMANS, S. D. TOWNSEND, A. L. PEIRSON, Committee. The Society did not, Mr. S. remarked, by entering this protest, wish to be understood as desiring to evade or elude investigation, if the Committee thought proper to pursue it. They were ready and willing to go into a thorough examination of the affair. They put in this protest chiefly to maintain a reserved right, to be availed of in future, if found necessary. J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 7 Mr. Sprague suggested that the order of notice had been unusually short, the ordinary time for notifying cor¬ porations being not less than thirty days—that he conse¬ quently had found no time to prepare for the investigation. He thought Friday as early a day as he could proceed. The supreme court being now in session, his attendance there was unavoidable. If the Committee held another meeting at an earlier day, the Medical Society would be compelled to seek other council—and whether, at this moment, they could obtain it, was doubtful. Dr. Bartlett said he was anxious to proceed without delay. He had his documentary evidence with him, and was prepared to prove every charge he had made in his memorial. It w T as important to him that no interruption should take place. The session of the Legislature was drawing to a close. If laid over, he might never obtain a hearing. The next Legislature might not be sufficiently honest to grant him one. He was here without council, a friendless, unaided man. He had not means to protract the issue. He had suffered in his feelings and interests, and wished the Committee to afford him an opportunity to obtain justice. He did not ask this as a boon ; he demanded it as a right—-not for himself merely, but for the public. He wished expedition in the case, as some of the documents necessary could not be kept by him long. They must be in France in three months. Mr. Sprague said he knew nothing of Dr. Bartlett’s grievances ; nor were they the question now under con¬ sideration. The question was concerning the charter of the Massachusetts Medical Society. The society certain¬ ly had a grievance. The annulment of its charter was demanded. He should confine himself to that. Against the demand to annul, the protest was entered. At this J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 8 ' time he should go no further. He should not medd e with Dr. Bartlett’s grievances, unless compelled to. If compelled, he should do so at some future lime. The Massachusetts Medical Society did not wish to avoid in¬ vestigation. He asked only time to fulfil other duties in court. If this was not granted, he could not appear for the society. Dr. Bartlett acceded to the wish of Mr. Sprague, and desired the Committee to ask leave to sit while the Leg¬ islature was in daily session. In private conference, on motion of Mr. Hinckley, voted , that the protest of the Massachusetts Medical So¬ ciety is not a valid objection to a hearing of the case. Adjourned to meet Friday, at 3 o’clock, P. M. March 22, 1839. Committee met according to adjournment. All mem¬ bers present. Dr. Bartlett opened his case. He said he proposed to offer evidence to show : 1. That Harvard College has a right to confer certain privileges ; that among these, is the right of consultation, without referring to any body of men ; that this right is inalienable, whatever may be the subsequent conduct of the individual upon whom it was conferred. 2. He should prove that Harvard College, as a cor¬ porate body, possesses certain rights which the Massa¬ chusetts Medical Society contravenes, and that the Legis¬ lature is not authorized to confer the power it has upon the Massachusetts Medical Society. 3. Even admitting that the charters of Harvard College J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 9 and the Massachusetts Medical Society were or are com¬ patible, he should prove that the Medical Society had not f'ullilled the purposes for which it was instituted, that its officers have failed to discharge their duty, and that the society has not complied with the terms of its charter. 4. He should show that the effects ol the Massachu¬ setts Medical Society had been injurious to society ; that it has imposed a yoke grievous to be borne, and that young physicians have suffered from its influence. 5. He should show that the Medical Society in its in¬ fluence! tended to promote quackery. 6. He should show that the Massachusetts Medical So¬ ciety prohibits consultation with any who do not become members of that bodv. •/ 7. He; should show, that in recommending a certain in- dividual to public notice and patronage, in the Boston Pilot, he did it as an editor and not as a physician ; and that the individual was a regular practitioner as an oc¬ ulist. 8. He should show, from a great variety of circum¬ stances, that his memorial to the Legislature is based in a sincere desire te) promote the welfare of society. He was not opposed to a Medical Society, but was opposed to the society. He was not actuated by wrong feeling in this matter. He did not view it merely as a personal af¬ fair, but as one in which the public interest and welfare was involved. 9. He should show that he was selected as an object of judicial operation by the society, for recommending as an editor a certain individual whom he believed a public benefactor; that when asked to retract his statements, he declined, and that when told by some member of the Medical Society, that if he persisted, he would be ex- 2 10 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. pelled ; he declared he did not care—he should speak what he believed to be the truth, let what might be the result. He should further show, that he impeached Dr. Waterhouse, before he (Bartlett) was expelled from the society, for recommending a notorious quack ; but that he was not dealt with according to the letter of the 8th by¬ law. Dr. Bartlett requested the Committee to obtain leave to send for persons and papers, and also to sit during the regular sessions of the House. The Committee decided that the future must determine their course in regard to that. Mr. Dexter, for the Committee of the Massachusetts Medical Society, read a paper asking the Committee to require of Dr. Bartlett specific charges in writing. The Committee decided that Dr. Bartlett might go on to ad¬ duce evidence of the allegations in his memorial ; but that if he introduced any new charges, they must be specifi¬ cally stated in writing. Adjourned to Saturday, A. M., 8 o’clock. March 23, 1839. Committee met pursuant to adjournment. Benj. F. Hallett, Esq. appeared as council for Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Bartlett was called up and sworn on the Holy Evangely. Ex¬ amined by Mr. Hallett. Hallett. Are you a doctor of medicine ? Ans. I am. I received my degree of Harvard College. Received my diploma Jan. 23, 1831. Hallett. Was you regularly admitted a member of the Massachu¬ setts Medical Society ? Ans. I was. I was admitted in -, 1S33, and expelled in May, 1836. Hallett. What were the privileges which that society conferred on you J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 11 Ans. Aid and assistance in consultation. Since my expulsion I have been refused this. Hallett. What would now be the effect in a critical case under your care ? Ans. A member of the Mass. Medical Society could not take charge of it unless I was discharged. If he did, he would be exposed to censure, and, in repeated cases, would be expelled. This is my own experience. I have been refused consultation in one case, be¬ cause the by-laws of the Mass. Medical Society prohibit it. Indul¬ gence could be obtained of the society by a member, to consult with one not belonging to it, if he made the request, by representing the case as one involving life. The Medical Society has upheld a member in consulting with an irregular practitioner, because the person proposed to join it. Dr. Peirson, of Salem, so consulted with a physician in Ipswich, who was not a member of the Mass. Medical Society. He was excused. Dr. Peirson holds a high rank as a professional man. This consultation was in the early part of 1836. Hallett. Dr. Bartlett, please state to the Committee the first move¬ ment of the Mass. Medical Society for your expulsion, and the causes which led to it. Dr. Bartlett. The first steps taken for my expulsion were in con¬ sequence of an article published over my initials, “ J. S. B.” in a newspaper printed in this city, called the “ Boston Pilot,” of which I was joint editor. It related to a person by the name of Williams, a professed oculist. The article is as follows:— “Mr. John Williams, the Oculist. We abhor quackery in all its forms—in medicine, religion, politics, or any thing else; and we never will be backward in exposing it wherever it may be found. As we define the word, it signifies ignorant imposture ; and, as such, it and its professors should be held up to the contempt and indignation of an injured and insulted community. But as our business is chiefly to speak of that sort which falls under our more especial notice, viz. medical quackery, we shall confine our exordium to a few remarks upon this. In the first place, it is by no means essential that a quack should be distinguished by the absence of a diploma, for we must say, in sorrow and shame, that some of the most flagrant instances of sheer quackery we ever witnessed, (and our opportunities of observation, since we received the degree of M. D. at the age of 18 years, have not 12 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. been very limited,) have occurred among duly authorized members of our profession. It is of no use to disguise facts—they are stubborn things; and although, in penning this article, we foresee the anathe¬ matization to which its publication will subject us for our candor, yet, as we are under no remarkable obligations to the professional elite of the city, with a few honorable exceptions, and most certainly under none whatever to the proteges of said elite, we shall speak our mind very plainly. We, in common with every body in the city who can read, had seen a great deal in the daily journals about the gentleman whose name heads these remarks; and we observed a disposition in several papers to vilify him, which, as far as we could judge from the tenor of the paragraphs in which it was manifested, emanated from a portion of the source above referred to. Well, we were determined to see for our¬ self, and accordingly called on Mr. Williams, and half an hour’s con¬ versation fully convinced us that there was nothing like quackery about him, so far as regards his knowledge of his profession, or his personal skill. As to his manner of announcing his residence in the city, it certainly is unusual in this country; but we do not know how any other method could have the desired effect of extending the informa¬ tion so effectually, in so short a period of time. Mr. Williams, we repeat, is no quack. He confines his attention exclusively to those diseases of the eyes and ears which are curable without surgical aid; and the number of these is much greater than one would suppose. To the truth of this last remark, the result of our own practice has often borne ample testimony. Whenever a surgical operation is requisite, Mr. W. immediately informs the patient of the fact, and recommends application to a surgeon. But more than this, we have examined several of his patients, and some of them too who had received any thing but benefit from hands heretofore thought almost omnipotent in diseases of a like character. Now the evidence of our senses amounts to this simple fact—we have seen people who were blind, or nearly so, and who had tried in vain every means of relief to be obtained here without success, restored to sight in an incredibly short space of time, without the aid of surgery. Several cases of pterygium and albugo were remarkable on this account. Mr. W. is the author of a valuable work in the French language, on the structure and diseases of the eye, which, had space permitted, we had intended to review. The sum of our remarks is this, that Mr. W. has acquired a degree J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 13 of perfection in the management of the distressing class of diseases, to ' which he confines his attention, which has never to our knowledge been equalled, at least if the official reports of the comparative number cured or relieved in the principal eye infirmaries in this country or in Europe are to be relied on. That the principles upon which he founds his treatment, are identically the same with those maintained by the most distinguished professors, and that the only difference in the re¬ sults of the separate methods of treatment is, that he effects in a few days, objects which usually require months and perhaps years for their fulfilment. He indeed keeps his remedial agents a secret, and he would be a great fool if he did not, until he had acquired an independent compe¬ tency for himself and his family, as a reward for his labor. The world is not generally so grateful as to give a man more cop¬ pers than kicks for what good he may do it. After it has starved its benefactors, it is very ready to console their widows and orphans by piling some dozen tons of granite over their last home; the cost of which if it had been given them in their lifetime, would have smoothed the path to that grave, where they would lie quite as easy without a monument to remind others of the spot. We therefore think, that Mr. Williams acts in this, the part of a prudent man, particularly as his services are gratuitous to the poor under all circumstances. We sup¬ pose his remedies will be made known to the world sometime or other, and conclude by saying, that if we ourself were atfected with disease of the character referred to, we would rather (M. D. as we are,) have our sight restored by Mr. Williams without a diploma, than after getting our eyes put out, to be informed, that the gentleman to whom we were indebted for this friendly service, had a waggon load of diplomas from all the universities and societies on the face of the earth, and could af¬ fix the letters of a dozen alphabets to the end of his name. (Signed.) J. S. B.” “ We can only add to the remarks in the above article, that every day’s observation since it was written, has confirmed the opinion there¬ in expressed, as regards the success of this gentleman to whom it re¬ fers, and the fact, that out of more than one hundred and forty cases which we have rigidly scrutinized, that one hundred and thirty-eight are relieved, and more than seventy cured; of which last, nine were at the time of application to Mr. W. totally blind; and the major por¬ tion of the whole number had been under the most skilful treatment to be obtained in New England, without receiving benefit. In no sin- 14 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. gle case have we heard an expression of dissatisfaction at his treatment, but on the contrary, the most enthusiastic expressions of gratitude. We had written a larger notice, but have no space to say more. (Signed.) J. S. B.” Hallett. Did you write that article as a Fellow of the Mass. Medical Society, or as an editor ? Ans. As an editor. Hallett. Are the facts therein stated true? Ans. They are. I could not as an honest man refuse to make these facts known. Hallett. Could you conscientiously retract this statement at any subsequent time ? Ans. I could not. Hallett. Have you evidence of Dr. Williams’ standing and medical character ? Ans. Yes. I have his diploma and various papers received by him in Paris and elsewhere. These documents satisfied me of his regular standing as an oculist, before writing the article in the Pilot concern¬ ing him. Hallett. What took place after the publication of the article con¬ cerning Dr. Williams? Ans. One or two days after, Drs. J. B. Flint and Winslow Lewis, Fellows of the Mass. Medical Society, cautioned me of my danger. A few days subsequent to this, I was notified to meet the Boston Medical Association, of which I was a member. This is a voluntary associa¬ tion, to regulate the intercourse and fees of its members. It is not a corporate body. Its members belong to the Mass. Medical Society. None but members are allowed to attend its meetings. The notice I received was of ordinary character, though I found its object was spe¬ cial. I was impeached before this body by Dr. Storer, and subsequent¬ ly expelled. The charges preferred against me were, consulting with irregular practitioners, and aiding and abetting quacks. These charg¬ es referred to my intercourse with Dr. Patrick Kearney and Dr. Wil¬ liams. The charges were referred to a committee. After my expulsion from the Boston Medical Association, I was summoned by notice, to appear before the counsellors of the Mass. Medical Society, to answer to charges of having violated the eighth article of its by-laws, by aiding and abetting quacks or irregular prac¬ titioners. I appeared, and justified the course I had taken as well as 1 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 15 could. I had abundance of time allowed me for my defence. There is no rule of the society by which I could compel a Fellow to give his testimony. I think the tendency of the society’s operations unpropi- tious. In my opinion, its influence would have ruined any young man who should have aided me at my trial. The counsellors decided to submit the case to the society at large, which was done in May, 1836. A report of my trial is contained in the Boston Medical Journal, of June 8, 1836. This report I consider full and impartial. Question by Mr. Greene. Do you rely upon the language attributed to Dr. Peirson in that report as proof of the charge contained in the tenth allegation of your memorial ? Dr. Bartlett. I do. I consider the words used by Dr. Peirson as there reported, to contain substantially the meaning which I have at¬ tributed to them. The effects and influence of my expulsion have been highly injurious to my character and prospects. Medical gentlemen have refused to consult with me, and I have lost prospective practice. My degree from Harvard College has been of no service to me since my expulsion. I have now no right which any loafer may not enjoy. My diploma is of no use to me here. The influence of the Medical Society is to crush a man down, and render him worse than dead. Since my expulsion, I have received attentions from members of the Mass. Medical Society as a gentleman, but not as a professional man. I find no difference of deportment in the former case; in the latter, I do. I have had to struggle to sustain myself. I have had no wealthy friends upon whom I could lean. I received nothing as a compensation for my services as an editor of the Pilot. I rely upon my professional services for support. I find it necessary to follow other pursuits for a livelihood. No complaint of mal-practice was ever preferred against me; but I have received many second-hand compliments for professional skill. I know of none who ever impeached my medical practice. There is a by-law of the Mass. Medical Society which makes it un¬ lawful for a member to offer to cure disease by the use of a secret medicine. He is bound to make known all his discoveries in medical science for the general good. There is no division of fees among the members of the society. Each receives and enjoys his own. The fee-bill is local in its laws and operations. A young man must join the Mass. Medical Society to be received and enjoy consultation, unless he is a graduate of the Medical School of Harvard College. It is the same with any distinguished foreign 16 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. medical gentleman, unless he is an honorary member, or is remaining here transiently without design to practice. A young man, by receiv¬ ing a degree from the Medical School of Harvard College, has the privilege of consultation. If he joins the Mass. Medical Society and is expelled, he loses that right. I was induced to join the .Mass. Med¬ ical Society from a desire and supposition that it would promote my own and the general good. I tried to induce Dr. Kearney to join the Mass. Medical Society, but thought he must be first naturalized. Dr. K. did not wish to put himself under restrictions. He is a man of independent feelings. Dr. K. was a regularly educated practitioner in his own country. The cathodic community prefer one of their own faith for their physician, that, in cases of the apprehended death of children before they can be taken to the church for baptism, or a priest can be sent for, he, (the physician,) may perform the rite according to the usage of the church. I explained this to the Medical Society. Adjourned. March 26, 1S39. Committee met according to adjournment. Dr. Bartlett cross-examined by Mr. Dexter. Dexter. Dr. Bartlett, were you familiar with the 8th by-law of the Mass. Medical Society, (just read,) when you were admitted a member? Ans. I was not. I had read it, but did not think much of its pro¬ hibition. I imagined it had allusion only to quacks, and not to those who had diplomas from other States, regularly educated foreigners, &.c. On my oath, I did not think the first clause to apply to regularly educated foreigners. Dexter. How did you understand that language? Ans. Not as I now do. Dexter. When did you join the Mass. Medical Society ? Ans. In 1833. Dexter. Did you not then think the 8th by-law applied to foreign¬ ers? Ans. I did not at that time. Dexter. When did you take your degree? Ans. In 1831. Dexter. You signed the by-laws when admitted a member of the Mass. Medical Society, did you not? Ans. I did. I did not take the trouble to read them before signing. Dexter. Did you know Dr. Williams was an irregular practitioner when you wrote the article in the Pilot ? J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 17 Ans. I did not. Williams said he did not wish to be called Dr., as he was professedly an oculist and aurist. Dexter. Was you notified by the society that you was violating the by-laws by recommending Williams? Ans. I was. Dexter. Did you not then desist? Ans. I did not. I did not consult with Williams as a physician. I visited him, but not as a consulting physician. I never visited with him but twice, and then not as a physician. Dexter. Do you know Williams’s secret remedies? Ans. I do not. I wish I did. Dexter. Are you acquainted with the case of Mrs. A. Plummer ? Ans. Cannot say I am. Dexter. Do you not recollect a female who came up from Salem to obtain help from Williams? Ans. I do not. Dexter. Can you tell by examining the eye whether it is under paralysis? Ans. Can generally. Dexter. Have you seen such cases cured? Ans. I saw one in New York greatly relieved by Dr. Williams. I saw the woman in September last; she then could discern nothing distinctly. I saw her a few weeks since, and she counted my fingers. I saw Dr. Warren cure a similar case, to the same extent, by burning down in the neck. I produced my own testimony to the Medical So¬ ciety as proof of Williams’s skill, and offered more. I did not ask any one to aid me at my trial. Several gentlemen spoke in palliation of my offence, but did not defend me. I was courteously treated at my trial, and have no cause to complain. Dexter. State what facts you have from personal observation, that, if any young man had come forward to aid you at your trial, he would have been ruined? Ans. I was told so frequently. Heard so miscellaneously. Re¬ cently informed so by a counsellor of the society. This was his opin¬ ion. Drs. Lewis, Flint and Smith, at my trial, spoke in palliation of my offence. They suffered in consequence. Dr. Lewis was removed from the chair of demonstrator of anatomy in Harvard College, and subsequently from the office of consulting surgeon at the Mass. General Hospital, as I believe, for the part he took at my trial. Dexter. Did Dr. Smith suffer ? 3 18 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. .4ns. No, because the city, not the society, paid him. I wanted to get out of the s Committee. EBNR. ALDEN, ) Boston, Oct. 5th, 1836. 44 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. among its Fellows. District societies are benefited by being furnished with books on loan from the library of the society. The Medical So¬ ciety has tended to prevent quackery, not by opposition, but by fur¬ nishing the public with regularly educated physicians, and distinguish¬ ing: those who are so. In reference to the management of the affairs of the society, I would remark, that it has often been found difficult to procure gentlemen to fill its offices, and that when good officers have been obtained, so oner¬ ous have been their duties that it has been necessary to urge them to continue. I am aware, that the motives of those most actively engaged have been misapprehended, and that their activity has been ascribed to selfishness, when it was based in a desire to promote the general good. But I am happy to know that many entertaining these views have changed them, upon a more intimate acquaintance with the truth. There is no law of the society enjoining secrecy on our proceedings. We transact our business very much as do other corporations. The doors are open and shut without regard to privacy. I remember one case, in which the character of an individual was involved, and the presiding officer, to prevent any unpleasant consequences, requested some who were accidentally present, but not members of the society, to retire, notifying them that when the business was transacted they should be informed, that they might return and hear the discourse. There w'as no injunction of secrecy in this case. The proceedings of this society have for several years been published. I w r as present at the examination of Dr. Bartlett before the counsel¬ lors, previously to his trial. The mode of his examination was not oppressive. He had every opportunity to make his defence. To pre¬ vent confusion in his mind, all questions were addressed him through the president. 1 was likewise present at the trial of Dr. Bartlett, on which occasion the remarks imputed to Dr. Peirson, in his memorial, are said to have been made. I am confident none such, nor any breathing the same spirit, were uttered by Dr. P. The idea of disre¬ garding the duties of humanity from a regard to specific rules of con¬ duct, w'ould never be countenanced by the Fellow’s of the society, nor by physicians generally. Practically there is no difficulty in deciding w'hen a disregard to the letter of the law is proper. A physician should hold to professional rules when his own interest is concerned, but w'hen the w'elfare and real safety of the sick is concerned, he is to regard them first. The “ sacrifice of human life” to preserve the by¬ laws, is a sentiment I disclaim, and which I know' is not entertained J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 45 by the society. There are some more vague and general charges against the society or its Fellows, in Dr. B’s Memorial, which I believe to be utterly groundless. There was a diveisity of opinion about his expulsion. Some thought it inexpedient, for reasons already stated by other witnesses. The majority, however, thought otherwise. There was no manifestation of ill will towards Dr. Bartlett, that I am apprized of, by any member of the Medical Society. I believe the influence of the Medical Society on young members to be in the highest degree beneficial. I form this opinion from my own experience. I very well recollect, that soon after I commenced practice, I inquired of a phy¬ sician, advanced in life, whether there was any tribunal to which I could go to prove my qualifications, saying, it would be worth a hun¬ dred pounds to a young man. But, although a Fellow of the society, he said there was not, and that it was of no consequence. At that time licenses were granted by the society, and degrees at Cambridge, but they were not regarded as of essential importance. So satisfied, however, did I become of the utility of a regular introduction into the profession, that I took a degree two years after I commenced business. I did this that I might more consistently enforce the principle in future on others. The medical diploma does not certify as to the natural abilities or talent of the graduate, but that he has pursued a proper course of study, and passed the requisite examination. The older members of the profession labor for the benefit of the younger. 1 have never known any leaguing of the few to control the many. Dr. Waterhouse has not been considered a member of the society since about 1805 or 1806. As a matter of courtesy he was marked on the catalogue as a retired member. That mark has a more definite meaning now than it had at that time. I never saw him at any meet¬ ing of the society that I can remember, and certainly not since 1806. He has not been charged with assessments since that period, as I be¬ lieve, nor do I think him to have been amenable to the by-laws, since the year he is marked as having retired. Cross-examined by Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Jackson, allow me to ask, if the immortal Jenner had come here for a few weeks to practise, and diffuse the knowledge of vaccination, would you, as a member of the Mass. Medical Society, have consulted with him? Ans. Such a case is hardly supposable, for medical men, of real worth and eminence of character, do not travel from place to place to practise. I should suspect such a man, and avoid him. Jenner pub¬ lished his discovery for the good of mankind, and his publications 46 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. answered every purpose of his coming here. But supposing such a case to occur, I should not unite with him, without having represented the case to my professional brethren, and invited their concurrence. By such consent and co-operation, all suspicion of selfishness w'ould be removed. Quest. Suppose a man to come into the city for ten or twelve weeks, having accredited diplomas, and during that time have no op¬ portunity to join the society, tvould you then, as a member of that society, consult with him ? Ans. We cannot know any thing of a man’s qualifications, nor of his claims to confidence, unless he presents them for our examination. If such a person should come here and advertise for practice, and, at the same time, manifest no desire to connect himself with the society, I certainly should decline his acquaintance. If, however, he really wushed to join the society and enjoy its privileges, and w r as prevented in consequence of the censors not having a session, the case w T ould be different. An honest man will find no difficulty in conducting himself in such a manner as to show that he is not actuated solely by personal interest, but by a regard for the public. In answer to a question by Dr. Bartlett, Dr. J. said, I am not aware that the Medical Society exercises censorship of the press. I think the article published in the Pilot, concerning Dr. Williams, expressed the sentiment of a physician, as the writer spoke of his degree and of his experience as a physician. The present organization of the Medical Society I believe the best for the interests of medical science. It aims to elevate the character of professional attainments, and there are doors enough through which a man may enter, if he choose. We recognise all who are willing to conform to the terms of membership. If others do not choose to re¬ cognise us, we do not complain. They only exercise their right; and they should not complain if we do not recognise them. It is not for seven hundred to court one. Quest. What is the difference between a dentist and an oculist, in relation to other members of the profession ? Ans. Generally, their character is essentially the same. In some respects, however, there is a difference. The simple extraction of a tooth, being mechanical, may be done without any knowledge of medi¬ cal science. But the application of remedies to the eye requires a knowledge of medical science, and so does a treatment of diseases of the teeth. To illustrate his opinion, Dr. J. said, that a man treating J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 47 diseases of the joints, &c. by external remedies, practised surgery, and that this was not a new opinion of his, to meet the present case, for he had stated the same on another occasion. Mr. Hewett had once called on him, wishing that he would aid him in a suit at law, by certifying that he (Hewett) was not a surgeon. But he (Dr. J.) felt bound to say to him, that he practised surgery, though he would not be ready to say that he did it scientifically, or that he did it well, having never wit¬ nessed his method of operation. Question by Dr. Bartlett. Do you think the affairs of the Medical Society are managed as well and as usefully as they were ten or twenty years ago ? Ans. Of late years, the purposes of the Medical Society have been more fully answered than formerly. Question by Mr. Hinckley. What would be the effect of repealing the charter of the Mass. Medical Society? Ans. I think the repeal of its charter would be injurious to the community. It would be so because community would not be so well able to determine who were, and who were not regularly educated practitioners. It would also be an inconvenience to us, from having so long acted under a charter. Even if devoted to scientific objects only, a charter would be convenient. This has been shown lately in the instance of the Boston Society for Medical Improvement. This society is confined entirely to scientific objects, yet has found a charter necessary, and has obtained one at the present session of the General Court. The repeal of our charter would deprive young physicians, regularly educated, of the advantages they now enjoy. At the meeting at which Dr. Bartlett was expelled, and just before his expulsion, he brought forward general and loose charges, against various Fellows of the society, for infractions of the 8th by-law. The society proceeded on the business in which they were engaged, and did not stop to investigate the matters thus brought forward. The next day, at a meeting of the counsellors, I alluded to those charges, and said, that though vague, and not coming from a source deserving much regard, they ought to be attended to, for the honor of the persons at¬ tacked, if for no other motive. I therefore moved, that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether there was any ground for those charges, and before whom any persons supporting them might appear. While this motion was under consideration, Dr. Lewis produced a written statement, containing in substance the same charges which had been preferred by Dr. Bartlett. A committee was then appointed to 48 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. attend to that matter, and the report of that committee was printed. It is the one before referred to.* Dr. Peirson, of Salem, sworn and examined. Dexter. Dr. Peirson, I wish to ask you a few questions on certain points in this case. Dr. Bartlett in the tenth allegation of his memori¬ al, has charged you with using certain language and uttering certain sentiments before the Mass. Medical Society at their annual meeting on the occasion of his trial, to wit: “ That the laws of the Mass. Medical Society do not recognise the sentiment, that a regard for mo¬ rality and the general good of mankind is, in any wise, incumbent on its members; and that its members are bound to obey the by-laws of the society without reserve, even though the sacrifice of human life be the consequence.” Did you, or did you not, utter this language? Ans. It is utterly false that I used the language, or uttered the sen¬ timents imputed to me by Dr. Bartlett in his memorial. It is false in language and false in idea It is false in general and false in particu¬ lar. The report of his trial is very fair. I should say his remarks are more fully reported than mine; but I do not think any partiality was meant. As to saying human life was not to be regarded, if to regard it was to disobey the laws of the society, I disavow the sentiment. I could not have uttered it at such a time, and in such a place. It would * See page 40. In reference to this matter Dr. J. wishes to have the following note added. The measures pursued in this case were the same as in the case of Dr. Bartlett, so far as they went. In his case a committee of inquiry was appointed, without mentioning Dr. B’s name, so that his name might not appear on the journal until some specific charge was made out. To this committee specific charges were made against Dr. Bartlett, ant evidence was adduced in support of them. Dr. B was then informed that such specific charges had been brought, and that he would be heard in his defence at a meeting of the counsellors. In reference to the cases referred to in the text, where the names had been brought for¬ ward by Dr. Lewis, a committee of inquiry was likewise appointed. To that committee any one could have brought specific charges and the evidence to support them Dr. Lewis was called upon by the committee, as his charges had not been specific, and as they were unaccompanied by evidence. His reply to the committee was, that he had no evidence ti produce. Here then the matter stopped, for no other person brought forward any evi dence. If the committee had called upon the parties accused when they had not any evi¬ dence whatever against them, a practice would have been introduced which might have led to the accusation in turn of every Fellow of the society. I think it proper to add, that one or more of the persons accused, not satisfied with this slate of things, did bring before the counsellors their own cases, with such explanation as that the counsellors did not think proper to censure them. The above statement is made from memory without consulting the records of the society and the documents on file; but I am satisfied that it is substantially correct. J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 49 ‘have produced a general burst of indignation. I never entertained such a thought. I never believed such a doctrine. I never avowed such a principle. I never uttered any where, at any time, such an ex¬ pression. I most solemnly deny it in thought or word. I deny it in general, in detail, out and out. What I did say on the occasion of Dr. Bartlett’s trial has been gross¬ ly perverted. The simple truth in the case was this : Dr. B. as one ground of justification of his course, assumed that it was legal, that he had done nothing which transcended the rules and laws of the society. To prove this, he read an extract from the “ Boston Medical Police,” the rules and regulations of another association, which he mistook for the by-laws of the Mass. Medical Society. By this he purposed to show, that the rules of the society sanctioned his conduct. In reply, I said he had misapprehended the matter, that the clause on which he founded his argument was not in the books of the Mass. Medical Soci- ety, nor was it in any article of the by-laws, and consequently that it did not relate to the affairs of the society. The point I wished to es¬ tablish was, that Dr. Bartlett’s argument for the legality of his conduct was not valid, inasmuch as it was based on the code of a private, local association, and not, as he supposed, on the language of our by-laws. And it is on this ground, that I have been charged in his memorial, with saying, that the members of the society are bound to obey its by¬ laws without reserve, even though the sacrifice of human life be the consequence. That I never made, nor was understood to make such a declaration, the certificate ofDrs. Warren, Hale and Homans, clear¬ ly proves. [Here Dr. P. read the certificate which is inserted on p. 18.] Between my consultation with Dr. Strong and Dr. Bartlett’s inter¬ course with Williams, about which so much has been said, there is no kind of analogy. Dr. Strong was a regular graduate of the Berkshire Medical Institution. He had often expressed a desire to become a member of the Mass. Medical Society, and was prevented from so do¬ ing only out of regard to the feelings of his friends connected with the former institution. He finally did determine to join the Mass. Medical Society, and was on nomination at the time of Dr. Bartlett’s trial. I was called to consult with Dr. Strong in the case of a young lady in Miss Grant’s school, at Ipswich. I informed the District Society, to which I belonged, what I had done. At the annual meeting of the general Society, when Dr. Bartlett’s trial took place, I stated the rea¬ sons for my consultation, and expressed my willingness, if it were 7 50 J. S. BARTLETT'S CASE. thought wrong, to submit to any discipline they might choose to impose. Now there is a manifest difference between a physician’s placing himself in this attitude and taking the ground assumed by Dr. Bartlett, viz., that he would consult with whomever he pleased, when¬ ever he pleased, and wherever he pleased, in violation of the by-laws of the society, which he had agieed to obey. With regard to Dr. Bartlett’s 12th allegation, that I objected to the reading before the counsellors of his letter, in which he says “ he ex¬ postulated with the society in a most respectful manner,” I did, I be- believe, in common with all the rest of that body, (at least, with a majority, for a vote was taken on the subject,) object to the reading of a long letter, which was printed and offered for sale at the bookstores. The ground of my objection was, that this letter was, generally, most disrespectful to the society, and intended to convey a gross personal insult to me in particular. If you turn to the first page of that letter, you will find the following language, which is totally at variance with Dr. Bartlett’s present declaration that he does not consider Dr. Wil¬ liams a practitioner of medicine or surgery, and that he did not consult with him, nor aid and abet him professionally, but only editorially : “ In the course of the investigation of this subject, it undoubtedly appeared manifest, that he [Dr. B.] had ffjr’PUBLICLY (not covertly) aided, abetted and been in consultation with certain medical gentlemen, contemplated in the 8th article of the M. M. S. law's.” He then goes on to quote part of the 8th by-law, defining w'hat is meant by an irregular practitioner of medicine or surgery. I wish here to say, I never have entertained any personal ill feeling towards Dr. Bartlett. It was with reluctance I undertook to conduct the prosecution against him. I took a friendly interest in him when he first commenced practice, and I now cherish no unkind sentiments towards him. The Committee, in conclusion, respectfully ask to be discharged from further consideration of the subject. For the Committee, EDWIN M. STONE, Chairman . J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 51 ADDENDA. The following interrogatories and answers were acci¬ dentally omitted on page 16 . The omission was not discovered until the work was too far advanced for inser¬ tion in their appropriate place. They should follow the answer to the question, “ When did you take your de¬ gree ?” Dexter. How old was you at the time you received your degree? Ans. I was 18 on the 14th of May previous. Dexter. When did you become a member of the Mass. Medical Society ? A//s. I cannot recollect. As you have the books, you can ascertain by examining them. Dexter. Is this your hand-writing? Ans. It is. Dexter. Then you became a member on —-— Feb., 1834. How old were you then? Ans. I am not arithmetician enough to say the multiplication table. If any gentleman present can calculate this important question, I shall be obliged to him for his services. Dexter. You were then between 22 and 23 years of age. Bartlett. I have no doubt of the fact. I know I was 18 in 1830, and have reason to believe I shall be 27 in 1839. I hope this impor¬ tant point is now settled. J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 53 APPENDIX. Near the close of the last meeting, Dr. Bartlett said he wished to read an affidavit from Dr. Waterhouse, and a letter from the French Consul, which were in answer to certain interrogatories he had pro¬ pounded. Mr. Dexter said, if they were to be read in evidence, he should object, inasmuch as such evidence would be exparte, and he should claim the right to cross-question. If read merely for informa¬ tion it was perhaps a matter of little moment, and he should not be strenuous, though he thought them irrelevant to the examination of this evening. No appeal was made to the Committee, and Dr. B. read the documents, which, having completed, were folded up and taken away by him. Two days subsequently, just at the close of the session, after the report of the Committee had been accepted, and the Commit¬ tee discharged, the documents were placed in the hands of the chair¬ man, with a request from the counsel for Dr. B. that they might be printed with the evidence. The affidavit of Dr. Waterhouse, the chairman of the Committee has not felt at liberty to incorporate with the evidence, not understanding it to have been offered as such at the time. This view was concurred in by two members of the Commit¬ tee, he having no opportunity to converse with the others. But that the strict impartiality which the Committee endeavored to maintain, may not be reasonably impugned, the paper from Dr. Waterhouse is inserted in this appendix. The letter from the French Consul, relat¬ ing to the diplomas of Dr. Williams, is not inserted, from a belief that the vote at the ninth meeting excludes it. The diplomas were not offi¬ cially examined by the Committee. 54 J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. To the questions severally propounded below and following, I, Ben^ jamin Waterhouse, return the answers thereto appertaining under oath, as follows, and as propounded by John Stephen Bartlett, Doctor of Medicine of Harvard University, to wit, on this eighth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine. 1. Were you ever a member of the Mass. Medical Society? Ans. Yes. 2. W'ere you ever expelled, censured, reprimanded, or in any wise subjected to the penal discipline of the Mass. Medical Society? Ans. Not that I ever knew. 3. Did you ever by word, action, or letter, communicate to the offi¬ cers of the Mass. Medical Society, your intention or desire to with¬ draw from the Fellowship, honorary or active, of that body? Ans. Never. 4. Have you publicly recommended a certain Samuel Thomson, popularly known as the founderof what is called the “ Thomsonian Sys¬ tem of Medicine,” ns a great public benefactor; and as a man eminent for medical research and skill; and have you published or caused to be published such recommendation over your own proper signature? Ans. I have. 5. Do you from personal observation and experience believe, that the Mass. Medical Society, has in the. general sense, been productive of good or evil to the profession of medicine, or to the community at large, under its organization and by-laws as they existed in 1835? Ans. I answer, that such restrictions as are contained in the by¬ laws of the society as above referred to, wouid not be tolerated in any civilized country, to my knowledge, excepting in this Commonwealth. 0. In your opinion, are restrictive laws, (professionally speaking,) calculated to promote the advancement of medical science, when they exclude those under their influence, from availing themselves of the skill or science of educated men, who prefer not to subject themselves to local regulations, although their professional eminence may be in¬ dubitably proved ? Ans. I think such laws improper, unwise, and absurd. 7. Is it your opinion, that a dissolution, or modified organization of the present Mass. Medical Society, would be for the welfare of the people of this Commonwealth, and for the interest of the medical pro¬ fession ? Ans. I think, that in order to effect good, the laws and organiza¬ tion of the society require essential change and modification. J. S. BARTLETT’S CASE. 55 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. Middlesex, ss. Cambridge, April 8, 1839. Then personally appeared the within named Benjamin Waterhouse, and made oath to the truth of the within written answers to the ques¬ tions within propounded, and declared them to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Before me, Attest. ABRAHAM HILLIARD, Justice of the Peace. / & f? 2s y ' 1 1 v