and feel their fitness to do special surgical work, and perhaps this training can best be obtained in the surgical clinic of a medical school. But can we as dentists all afford to neglect the field of work which opens to us all everywhere for those unusual opportunities of service which are grudgingly given and not often secured without collusion or superior fitness-a fitness acquired by special training and natural adaptability.

What man among us has not felt a commiseration and contempt for the medical man who has assumed knowledge (few do more than assume) of dentistry? I would like to ask you, this company, if you have ever received one helpful comment, one aid to practice, from a general practitioner? I do not ask from a spirit of antagonism; I am a graduate of medicine, a licensed practitioner in my state, a special lecturer in a medical college; but I am, and only claim to be, a dentist, and, however often I am called into consultation (and I would be glad for the patient's sake if it were oftener), it is for my special, my dental knowledge.

Amalgamation, generalization, is not as it seems to be in the business world-the keynote of process in the science and art of healing.

Is any man ashamed that he is a dentist? Let not his shame confuse his conscientious performance of his strictly dental duties to his patients; but if it does, then rather let him be ashamed that he is not a man; let us be ashamed that he was ever called a dentist. Not failure, but low aim, is crime.

High aim is not personal preferment or local distinction, but to be and to do the very thing we claim to be and do as it can best be done.

Aspirations for medical recognition and associations cannot do for us what we can do if we well perfect ourselves in our special practice, and no badge of inferiority need be worn.

Your chairman could not close his report without restating what he has written and spoken in a different capacity, viz., a plan for the preliminary training of the dentist.

It rests with us, the mature thinkers, the teachers, the protectors, the fathers, the sponsors of dentistry, to say what shall be the training of the candidate for dental study.

The general educator, the medical man (whether he be dentist or not) has said that in order to enter his pupilage for a liberal profession he must have so many counts in Latin. Do you consider this sufficient? You know the boys that have made the best dentists. Was there not something in special aptness or training? Will you not say that a student should come to the study of dentistry with a fair knowledge of mechanics?

It is manifestly impossible for a boy to receive any stimulation to the cultivation of mechanical ability in the average preparatory school of to-day, during the years when motor development is best accomplished. This association, representing as it does in this branch and the central body the dental profession of America, stands sponsor to the race for the proper qualification of those who aspire to the practice of our specialty. The members of this association, though scattered over a broad expanse of territory, are in their communities influential, and if they will but agree in this council and at the

homes of its members on the following propositions, they will render a great service not only to the embryo dentist, but to their several communities: First. That it is essential that opportunity shall be given for motor training of youth;

Second. That this motor training shall be so associated with academic training, both in preparatory and collegiate work, that students electing this course shall be at no disadvantage in obtaining their academic degree.

This training is essential to those who enter any pursuit where mechanics are involved, and not without use to any well-rounded human being.

Let us urge the introduction into our preparatory schools of manual training, where selection by those who propose to pursue some calling requiring mechanical ability. B. HOLLY SMITH, Chairman Committee on Education, etc.

DISCUSSION OF DR. SMITH'S PAPER.

Dr. Wms. Donnally, Richmond, Va. :—I am very grateful for the recognition of the chair. While I am very much interested in this subject, I have sometimes felt that this problem of dental education would not be solved in my day. I have changed my mind, however, in the last year or so. From recent discussions of this subject, I am inclined to think that the natural tendency of the dental profession is inevitably towards specializing, and when I hear such a paper from such a leader as Dr. Smith, my heart is rejoiced indeed that this question is to be settled by men, who are ready to take hold of it and determine it for the benefit of the profession. I do not think that I should go into the merits of the case, and give my views. Never having done anything in the teaching line, I prefer to leave it to those, who, like Dr. Smith, can speak from personal knowledge. I feel sure there are many today so doubtful of their position, and so doubtful of the position of the profession, that they long for medical recognition. I feel sorry for the man who has no part in the solution of the problem of the independence of the dental profession.

Dr. S. W. Foster, Atlanta :-I enjoyed the reading of this paper. I agree with Dr. Smith in most of his suggestions, but I must differ to a certain extent with some of his expressions. I believe that the tendency is too much towards specializing the dental profession today; too much towards specializing it from a technique standpoint. I appreciate the reasons why we are having these papers tending along this line. We are reminded that we are not recognized in European countries. We know they do not recognize the dental

degree in their schools, but make it subject to their medical degree, hence, they teach theory at the expense of technique. The International Association of dentists in Europe has brought about an influence largely changing the sentiment towards technique study as it pertains to dentistry. We are to have a meeting in Stockholm, where the American schools are to impress the importance of specializing dentistry, but let us not, in zeal, go to the extreme. I do not think that our education should be wholly theoretical, but I do think our position is dangerous, when we try to specialize too much towards technique. I recognize the fact we must have technique, but I believe many schools are devoting too much time to preparatory technique, at the sacrifice of investigation of the fundamental studies, chemistry, anatomy, and physiology, which underlie all medical science.

I refer you to the lecture of Dr. Brophy last night. A man could not do that who is only specialized in dental technique. We must have that learning of the fundamental principles of medicine, that will enable us to build up our profession. We cannot afford to eliminate this and put in too much technique. We must have chemistry, anatomy, and physiology. The tendency towards technique would lead the casual observer to think that a mechanic is all that is necessary to be an up-to-date dentist. I agree with you that it is best for the dental classes to be separated from the medical classes. I believe in sufficient technique to make expert operative dentists, but many do not get the underlying principles of our great profession.

Dr. J. P. Gray, Nashville:-I want to thank my friend for the paper, but, like Dr. Foster, I cannot agree with him in all of his expressions, and for fear some of the young men present might misunderstand the paper, I would call attention to the mechanical part of his address. I am sure he did not mean it in the terms he expressed. I believe there should be a thorough teaching of the fundamental principles underlying dentistry-chemistry, anatomy, and physiology. It is impossible for us to separate them. We could not teach anatomy perfectly by simply teaching the anatomy of the head, neck and throat. We cannot teach physiology properly by confining ourselves to the study of the teeth. Unless we study the principles. of physiology, we are lost when it comes to the teeth. I believe the

colleges are awakening to the fact that it is important to give this thorough course in the underlying principles, before allowing the student to operate upon the patient. It is best that they be given the proper instruction in this line before allowing them to do operative work, and, if we stress too much the point of technique, I think it is on the wrong line. Our surgeons certainly would not teach practical surgery before teaching the principles, and I believe that it is best that we begin to teach the principles of chemistry, anatomy, and physiology before we teach the practical branches.

Dr. G. V. I. Brown, Milwaukee:-I wonder if all present appreciate fully the value of that paper. No one could have written such a paper, who had not given the subject a great deal of thought but I disagree with the essayist in some of his ideas. The paper is the product of too careful study of facts for us to undertake to argue against the paper-in this we all agree. The situation is just as he describes it, but I do not think the facts necessarily bear out the conclusion. It seems to me that we should take into consideration the fact that, when the Creator made man, he made him all in one, and therefore it seems useless for us to assert that dentistry is a branch of the healing art. The fact is, we are not a branch of that art, and for us to attempt to define the line of demarkation, between what we know and what the general practitioner should know, is difficult. The line is far from being clear. There is a certain amount of knowledge of the teeth necessary to the medical profession, but how is the medical man to know about these matters, if we do not teach him? How can we teach him unless he recognizes us as his equal in education? It seems to me that this has been the turn in the discussion of every paper before this body. The medical men do not understand these things as we do, therefore patients come to grief in excellent hands. We should invite them into our office to see us perform operations, teach him what the dentist does, and impress upon him the importance of leaving strictly dental operations for the dentist.

We should have sufficient technique to make us expert operators, but because that is true I fail to see why it is a disadvantage that we shall have the proper education, especially when it holds out so much inducement in placing us on a plane of equality to the man we propose to associate ourselves with in the medical profession. Give

the student as much education as you please in technique, but give him the proper idea of medical subjects.

Now, the danger lies here: Where our institutions are associated together, there are not many instances but where the power of management is in the hands of the medical men, and the dental student does not receive the proper consideration. He simply helps out the medical department. Let us impress upon the medical men the importance of this question, and endeavor to get the institutions to give the dental student that education, which he should have. If this cannot be done, let us divide ourselves. I believe, however, this can be done the other way.

Referring to my own personal experience; I attended a college where the medical and dental courses were given together. The dental students began their technique work immediately along with their other medical studies, and continued until their medical course was finished. The idea of dentistry was paramount. We are not of the idea that they were a profession we were to be ashamed of. It is not possible to make one branch greater than another. The man who has a medical degree, but who prefers to practice dentistry, is a great deal above the general practitioner. If there is any difference, it is in our favor. If we do not claim it, it is our own fault. We must educate the theoretical dentist to be fully equal to the medical When we have done this, they are equal.

man.

In the American Medical Association it is a fact that the section on stomatology has the same courtesy as every other section. In the entire Association, less than 100 men will control the work of the Association. They will transact all the business, etc. There are about 3,000 or more members. They have a few from the dental section, as from other sections, and where we make our mistake is, that we do not claim what we are entitled to. If we would, they would give us all we were entitled to.

I would say, give equal power to the dental branches in these medical schools. Let it be understood that the dental department is to have all that is coming to them; that the dentist is a privileged individual in their institution, and that the dental student is to get such course as they should have, and not be made subservient to any other course.

Dr. Young: This is a very serious subject with me. I feel myself