to register the will of the legislature and to supervise such branches and departments any legislature may see fit to provide for. By the power claimed, the legislature may completely dismember the university and remove every vestige of it from the city of Ann Arbor. It is no argument to say that there is no danger of such a result. The question is one of power, and who shall say that such a result may not follow? The legislature did once enact that there should be a branch of the university in every judicial district. Under this power the legislature could remove the law department from the university at Ann Arbor to Detroit and provide that the law library to which one citizen of Michigan has donated $20,000 could also be removed. What permanency would there be in an institution thus subject to the caprice and will of every legislature?"

This decision of the court must, of course, be accepted as final but it will come as a disappointment to those who believed that the best interests of the school would have been served by removal to Detroit. The desire for removal was practically unanimous. The Homœopathic State Society of Michigan, the profession of Michigan, and the American Institute of Homœopathy all believed that the college should be moved from the campus at Ann Arbor. The history of the homoeopathic department of the University shows only too clearly that the department has survived in spite of the Regents and not because of any loyal aid or support from them. And it was because of this history and the consequent distrust aroused, that it was felt if the college was ever to attain even a decent degree of prosperity it must be removed from the hostile influence of the Regents and placed in the hands of its friends. If the Board of Regents will now give to the homeopathic department the same earnest enthusiastic support they give to every other department of the University, the school would be supported by the homoeopathic profession. But the record of the past is not to be forgotton in a night. The confidence of the profession is not now to be won by protestations of fairness and just-dealing. Convincing evidence must be forthcoming at once of the intention of the Regents to do as much in building up the department in the future, as in weakening and breaking down, in the past. If the Regents will now loyally and honestly support the school, develop its resources, and increase its advantages, they may expect the support of the homoeopathic profession. But if they will not do this and attempt again to treacherously destroy the school we advise our friends to make vigorous war upon the Regents in the Legislature and teach them once more that even if the Regents control the University the Legislature controls the appropriations.

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

A New Department.-There are many medico-legal questions that often arise to perplex physicians, which if answered promptly and correctly, save much worry and trouble. Cases of poisoning, malpractice suits, collecting of bills, responsibility in obstetrical cases, and numberless other points call for speedy and accurate information. It gives us pleasure to announce that Judge Joseph M. Deuel, of New York, will hereafter conduct a department in the NORTH AMERICAN, devoted to a consideration of these legal questions that are peculiarly allied to medicine. He will be glad to reply to all questions and will besides, from time to time, contribute instructive papers on medico-legal subjects. We hope our readers will make good use of this importment department, and avail themselves of the eminent legal learning and ability of Judge Deuel.

Dr. Willard's Victory.-It will be pleasant news to our readers to learn that Dr. L. H. Willard, the well-known surgeon of Pittsburgh, Pa., has won his case before the supreme court. This suit, famous in court annals, was brought by a certain John Richards against Dr. Willard to recover damages for alleged malpractice. The case was tried three times in the common pleas court. The first time a verdict of $5,500 was rendered for the plaintiff. The jury disagreed the second time and the third time a verdict for $12,000 or $2,000 more than was asked was given for the plaintiff. The verdict was reduced to $4,000 by the court below and the case then went to the supreme court. That court reverses the case dismissing the suit without granting a new trial. The opinion of the court is so strong, so forcibly stated and of such interest to all physicians that we yield space for the essential portion of it. If such a result as this could be the outcome of many other suits, ignorantly or maliciously begun against surgeons and physicians it would cast a damper on "shyster" lawyers and their clients. And if the opinion of the court is severe concerning the action of the various juries concerned in the trial, it must be remembered that in a malpractice suit the ignorance and prejudice of the jury is always against the physician. The court in its opinion says:

"After a painstaking, careful and minute study of the testimony, we are constrained to say the verdict of the jury was an outrage upon the administration of justice. There was no aspect of the testimony upon which it could be justified for any such amount, in any event. The plaintiff's case, at the very best, was of the most doubtful character. No verdict could be sustained at all except by striking down the testimony of ten entirely competent, disinterested witnesses, and accepting in its place the testimony of two witnesses, who, whatever may be their personal merit, did not possess a tithe of the experience or means of observation enjoyed by the defendant's witnesses. As to three of those who personally saw and carefully and frequently examined the plaintiff's leg immediately after the accident, when it could be best observed and considered, their testimony was absolute and positive that there was no fracture. They were all disinterested, capable and two of them at least having a

large experience in this class of cases, and there is no reason discoverable in the testimony why their judgment and their evidence should be rejected in order to give place to the opposing testimony of two of the plaintiff's witnesses one of whom did not see the patient until eighteen days after the accident, and the other not until forty-eight days had elapsed.

"It must not be overlooked that the medical and surgical service rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff was entirely gratuitous, the defendant receiving therefor, no compensation of any kind. For many years Dr. Willard has been rendering such service to the hospital to which the plaintiff was brought after receiving his injury. He was one of a corps of physicians, who from motives of benevolence and charity, contribute, as they do in many other cities and towns, their time, their skill, their labor and their most valuable and humane services in relief of the sickness and suffering of their race. If such gentlemen are to be harassed with actions for damage when they do not happen to cure a patient, and are to incur the hazard of having their estates swept away from them by the verdicts of irresponsible juries, who caring nothing for law, nothing for evidence, plain teachings of common sense, choose to gratify their prejudices or their passions by plundering their fellow citizens in the forms of law, it may well be doubted whether our hospitals and other charitable institutions will be able to obtain the gratuitous and valuable service of these unselfish and charitable men. It is much more than probable that if this plaintiff had been content to remain at the hospital a week or two longer he would have been cured of his hurt. Because he would not submit to such a reasonable detention, he apparently brought upon himself all his subsequent suffering. If he chooses to take such risks, he must take the consequences himself."

Privileged Communications.-Some little time ago, as many of our readers are doubtless aware, a bill relating to the testimony of physicians in the Courts of the District of Columbia was presented to the House of Representatives with the unanimous approval of the House Committee. The bill provides that:

"No physician or surgeon shall be permitted, without the consent of the person afflicted, or of his legal representative, to disclose any confidential information which he shall have acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, whether such information shall have been obtained from the patient or from his family or from the person or persons in charge of him: Provided, That this act shall not apply to evidence in criminal cases where the accused is charged with causing the death of or inflicting injuries upon a human being, and the disclosure shall be required in the interests of public justice."

This bill extends to the citizen the liberty of privileged communications to physicians similar to that guaranteed to attorneys under the common law. Such a law is not now new nor untried. Substantially the same provisions are in force in twenty States and one Territory. It is a law that has the endorsement of every lover of justice. But according to the Boston Transcript, six Justices of the Supreme Court advise the defeat of the bill, and their reasons, which will be of much interest to the profession, are as follows:

"The privilege extended to communications between legal adviser and client, at common law, was based upon public policy, and had direct reference to the administration of justice which required the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all judicial proceedings. The reason for the rule was said to be that without it no man would dare consult a professional adviser with a view to his defence or to the enforcement of his rights. No such reason exists or applies as to communications made by patient to physician, and it clearly fails with reference to knowledge derived by the physician from observation. There is no occasion for the provision excluding information ob

tained from the family or others attending the patient, for the rule of evidence as excluding hearsay testimony accomplishes that.

"The enactment sought by this bill would be a serious obstruction to justice in contests over life insurance, personal injury from negligent or wilful acts, wills, and others in which mental capacity is involved. In such cases, facts coming under the observation of the attending physician are generally of first importance, and in cases involving questions of mental capacity the opinion of the physician, based in whole or in part upon communications made to him by the patient, is frequently the most important evidence adduced. These objections are not obviated by placing such evidence within 'the power of the person afflicted, or of his legal representative' to permit or deny. It is not to be anticipated that such person will ever consent to the examination of a physician whose testimony is expected to be adverse to him, and the other party to the litigation, and the court as well, perhaps with full knowledge of the situation, would be powerless in such instances to require the truth to be shown."

The opinion of the learned judges may accord with the law. But it is very possible that a wider view may be taken. From neither public nor profession has any protest been heard against existing laws similar to the one proposed for the District of Columbia. The communications of the patient to his physician are often, from the nature of the case, compulsory. Since, by common law no one can be compelled to directly criminate himself by confession in open court, indirect crimination should be forbidden by statute law. No person should have his confidential communications to his physician disclosed. Public opinion and medical ethics everywhere maintain the inviolability of such communications.

The Collins Hospital. This new hospital for the homœopathic treatment of the insane was not established without a severe struggle. While much was done in previous years the final battle was fought and won last Winter, at Albany. At the annual meeting of the State Society much valuable and important work was done before various legislative committees and the ground well cleared for later and conclusive action. The Buffalo Express in speaking of the hospital, says: "In the establishment of this institution its promoters have been opposed at every turn; even the State Lunacy Commission, fought it up to the last session of the Legislature, but the claims of the homoeopathic school were finally admitted and last Winter the board of managers received a grant of an additional $100,000 with which to erect preliminary buildings. The plans were immediately prepared and have been approved by the State Commission and State Architect, leaving nothing more to be done but to award the contracts and build as far as the appropriation will permit." Under an act passed at the last session of the Legislature the present Board of Managers, three in number, were legislated out of existence.

A new Board of seven, uniform in number with the Boards of all other State hospitals, must be appointed before the end of December next. But the members of the Collins Hospital Board may be appointed from any part of the State. The other hospitals except Middletown, must have managers residing in the "hospital district." A description of the hospital buildings and grounds will be found in our news columns.

Pennsylvania State Society. The Thirty-second Annual Session of the Homœopathic Medica Society, of the State of Pennsylvania, will be held in Philadelph'ia, Tuesday and Wednesday September 29th and 30th, 1896. A large attendance is expected and an elaborate programme is being prepared.

The Inter-State Committee.-This new committee of the Institute hoped for at Newport, became an established fact at Detroit. The State Societies responded to the request for delegates to the committee and twenty-eight societies out of thirty-three were represented. The Committee held several sessions at Detroit, and in accordance accepted the following:

WHEREAS, It is of great importance that our State Societies should be in harmony with the American Institute of Homoeopathy, therefore, in order to secure this end,

WE RECOMMEND, The revival of the former custom by which the Presidents of our State Societies shall become honorary vice-presidents, and the secretaries, corresponding secretaries of the Institute, during their respective terms of office.

The following recommendations were also adopted:

Ist. The legal incorporation of homoeopathic State Societies, not already incorporated;

2nd. The organization and incorporation of homoeopathic State Societies in States containing a sufficient number of homoeopathic physicians, wherever no such organizations now exist;

3rd. That it be urged upon all homeopathic State Societies to annually furnish the Institute with correct lists of homoeopathic physicians and of all homœopathic institutions (including hospitals, colleges, societies, journals, etc.) in their respective States; also, that an annual report of desirable locations for homeopathic physicians be prepared by the State Societies for publication, and that copies be furnished to the American Institute;

4th. That the Inter-State Committee be made a permanent Committee;

5th. That each State Society shall annually publish a list of its members, together with a resumé of its general transactions;

6th. That a system of Inter-State delegations between our State Societies be arranged as far as practicable.

The work of this committee is a most important one. It may not only strengthen the Institute by increasing its membership and arousing a wider interest in its proceedings but it should so plan that all our societies, state and national, shall be found working systematically and harmoniously together. The members of the InterState Committee from each society together with the President and Secretary of the Society should respond to the suggestions of the committee promptly. And they should do more. There ought to be and could easily be obtained from each State Society, from twenty to thirty new members of the Institute for Buffalo. The importance of this work justifies the anxiety of the committee's most efficient and accomplished secretary Mary F. Cushman, M. D., of Casline, Maine, that her appeal for active work on the part of those responsible be promptly heeded.