crystals are found and demonstrated and the corpuscles are dried so they can be redissolved, then there is no need of applying other chemical tests; but by a failure of the above, the spectroscopic test should be used, and if blood were present you would get the characteristic reaction. Having tried these tests and further examined with the microscope for the corpuscles, if they have not so far degenerated that they cannot be recognized, he may state with a degree of certainty that they are blood stains, being human, or dog, or any other animal whose corpuscles are about the diameter of the human blood corpuscles.

With reference to the determination of the corpuscles of fish and reptiles, it seems to me that unless the corpuscles have been subjected to some severe exposure or to long continued soaking in water or other liquid, they should be always recognized; that an expert may state with a degree of certainty that they are not man's. With reference to the conclusion that should be drawn from the corpuscles of man alone, it seems to me that in fresh blood -blood freshly drawn from the animal-it would be safe, having made careful examination-having been shown that it was blood, and fully satisfied that the conditions confirm the opinion that they were fresh, such as change of contour or lateral diameter-it seems to me that a different opinion could be given from that narrowly drawn limit stated in the doctor's paper.

I find on the perusal of recent authorities that corpuscles measuring less than one four-thousandths of an inch in diameter may be stated fearlessly to be not those of man or any of the animals whose blood closely resembles that of man; but if not positive as to the exact diameter,

it would be much safer to state simply that they resembled the human corpuscles."

Dr. G. B. Bullard : “Mr. President and Gentlemen : -I do not recognize anything particularly familiar in Dr. Linsley's nice showing and I want Dr. Linsley to tell me, if he will, what I shall use and what I shall do-how I can be positive with reference to recognizing the tubercle bacillus.

I was very glad to hear Dr. Linsley say that you should use artificial light, as I have become convinced that a man must have artificial light and have it exactly as Dr. Linsley says in order to see clearly, and especially so since my eye-sight got so poor. But I would like to know how What kind of a lens

I can be sure of tubercular microbes.

shall I use; will a one-fifth lens do?

Dr. J. H. Linsley: "There is, arising almost every day, the question of detecting blood corpuscles-it is probably attempted to be done in every State in the Union. I have myself been called upon to do this very same thing. I was given an implement to determine whether there was any blood on it. I examined it carefully and found a number of places where I thought there were blood corpuscles of thirty-eight hundredths of an inch in diameter. I examined three or four days and found more corpuscles. In the meantime the stains found would not react with the hematin test. They were not colored particularly. I then wrote to Prof. Wormley asking if it would be possible to have so small a quantity of blood, the corpuscles be present and yet not be able to get the reaction from the Guaiacum test. He said he believed it was. I was not satisfied with that; I then examined a number of other spots until I finally found one that gave the reaction. Even

then, I could not say that these corpuscles were of the human blood, all I could say was that they were consistent with the human corpuscles.

Now, I must beg leave to differ with Dr. Jenne in regard to the statement that all corpuscles smaller than onefour thousandths of an inch must be of dog or man or some animal of that class; and I think I can demonstrate to his satisfaction a given field of at least twenty corpuscles, where one-third were of less diameter than normal. Now, if that is the case, can you say that that blood is not from man?

I have spent the last year in more or less constant work on this subject, and I must say that I started with a very different idea of the blood than I now have, and the conclusion I have come to is that the more I work on the subject the less I am able to do with it.

In reply to Dr. Sherwin, I would say as to the condition of the blood corpuscles as described by him, that in some conditions, the corpuscles do certainly break up; but I supposed it was just before death where the blood split up very rapidly, in this particular case I can't explain it, there might have been something as to the condition of the finger that was not quite proper before the puncture was made.

To determine tubercular bacilli, the use of the carbon fixing fluids and the coloring with methaline blue is the most simple. The tubercle would be blue and the ground light. The best lens for this use is the one-twelfth, but you can use the one-fifth.

Vice-President's Address.

CHRONIC GASTRITIS.

By F. F. Chaffee, M. D., Hartford.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Vermont State Medical Society:

The general practitioner, the busy plodder in medicine, may, I believe, find his most profitable and practical field of study in his every day work. He is not and from the very nature of his work he cannot be a pioneer to explore new and unheard of realms in the domain of science. He may more safely take Sidney's maxim, "Look in thy heart and write." It is not often his to lead but to follow; and if he but follow safely and well he need not care if he sometimes finds the path well trodden before him. It is with some such thought as this that I venture to select for my theme, what may perhaps be deemed a commonplace topic, Chronic Gastritis.

It seems to me, however, that several reasons lend much more than ordinary importance to this subject. First, the very great frequency of the disorder and the fact (for I believe it to be a fact) that the disease is so often imperfectly diagnosticated. We hear far too much of the terms indigestion, chronic dyspepsia, etc., or at least too much

misuse of them, employed in a sense as vague, indefinite, unscientific and conveying about as little pathological meaning as did the old use of the term "Dropsy." Second, the profound effects of the disease upon the whole being of the afflicted individual, physically, mentally, morally,-mal-nutrition with its horde of resulting evils and dangers. The physical suffering entailed is fitly accompanied by a train of mental disturbances, altogether forming a picture only too often seen in the victim of socalled chronic dyspepsia. I have often wondered if Thomas Carlyle, that fretful, fault-finding, petulant prince of pessimists, did not draw much of his inspiration from his stomach. It is related that at the age of 23 he became afflicted with what was called dyspepsia. What a description he himself gives of his experiences and mental suffering from gastric disorder:

"I entered my chamber and closed the door, and around me there came a trooping throng of phantoms dire, from the depths of nethermost perdition. Doubt, fear, unbelief, mockery and suffering were there and I wrestled with them in an agony of spirit. Thus it was for weeks, whether I ate I know not, whether I drunk I know not, but I know that when I came forth again it was with the direful persuasion that I was the miserable owner of a diabolical arrangement called a stomach. The accursed hag, dyspepsia, had got me bitted and bridled, and was ever striving to make my living, waking day, a thing of ghastly night-mare."

And now, gentlemen, trusting you will not deem the subject of my theme wholly unimportant and unprofitable, I will endeavor to call your attention to some of the more