statement requires any extended criticism. It is sufficient to remark that the author of it deserves to be crowned as the asinus extraordinarius of bureaucratic medical journalism. He must be a mental and moral cretin. For the mental weakness we can administer thyroid. What remedy is there for the moral condition?

Dr. G. Frank Lydston and His Traducers.

Dr. G. Frank Lydston has been doing some strenuous work recently in trying to prove that Dr. George H. Simmons is not the best man for the position of secretary-editor of the American Medical Association. As a member, having the interests of the association at heart, he was quite within his rights, however one may disagree with his mode of warfare. And members defending Dr. Simmons against the attacks of Dr. Lydston are also quite within their rights. There is one contemptible, dastardly thing, however, which some editors of official medical journals have been guilty of, and this can not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Some of these editorial gentry have been making the accusation that Lydston has been supported or aided in his work by the proprietary interests. Anybody making or hinting at such an accusation is a contemptible liar. Strong words these, but the only ones that will suit the occasion. I do not know Dr. Lydston, have never met him, but from his writings everybody knows that he is a strong opponent of the nostrum and of the fraudulent proprietary, and has never stood in any relationship to any manufacturer. And nobody knows it any better than those who in their unprincipled meanness have made the accusation.

And this is the terrible state of affairs we have come to: A man's record may be as pure as the newly fallen snow; he may be a highly competent physician, known to his colleagues and to everybody else to be scrupulously upright, honorable and honest; let that physician deliver an address or write a paper daring to express his disapproval of certain things that are going on in the association; let him dare to criticize certain official persons or official acts; and immediately that man is accused of being in the employ of the proprietary interests, of having sold his soul to the devil, of being a venal writer. This is done either publicly, tho in veiled language, or it is done by inuendos, by underhand methods, by shoulder shrugs, whisperings, etc. And done by whom? By political wire pullers, who as physicians amount to nothing, who had always been the friends of the very worst of nostrums, defending them and admitting them into their pages as long as possible, and who decided to undergo the ethical baptism only when forced to do so by the current of events, by the true reform element of the profession-only when perceiving that persistence in friendship to the nostrum meant political suicide. And now these insincere humbugs, these sanctimonious hypocrites

flaunt their ethical robe before all passers-by, and dare to apply epithets to men whose standing in the profession is unquestioned, to men whose shoes they are not worthy to unloosen.

These are some of the fruits of the bureaucratic régime in a period of about four years. What will the future bring?

The Referee's Report on the Products of the Organic Chemical Mfg. Company, and the Moral Thereof.*

We presume that nobody will accuse us of entertaining an excessively friendly feeling for The Organic Chemical Manufacturing Company. And we presume further that nobody will blame us for it. Some five or six years ago we had occasion to analyze and to condemn some of their products, and the rage of the company at our temerity knew no bounds. They spread wicked rumors, made slanderous statements, sent out circulars and pamphlets broadcast (perhaps our readers and those who attended the Atlantic City meeting of the A. M. A. four years ago will remember the pamphlet "A Guide to the Critic"), attacking both our veracity and ability; in short, they did everything in their power to injure us in every possible way. Apparently, Dr. Summers, the president of the company, is a bitter enemy and takes every criticism of any of his products as a deliberate personal injury. So of any friendly feelings towards Dr. Summers or his company there cannot be, there can never be, any question. And we presume that we ought to feel pleased at the Referee's report published in the J. A. M. A. for May 8, in which the Organic Chemical Company and some of their products are handled most mercilessly. But we do not. We are so "perverse" that we cannot with equanimity see an injustice done even to an enemy. And that referee's report is, in our opinion, a very unjust piece of work.

Anybody who is not wearing closely-fitting bureaucratic blinders cannot help carrying away the impression that the referee's report is saturated with bias from the beginning to end. It is not an impartial judicial statement; it is the bitter plea of an attorney for the other side. See, for instance, in what a sneering manner the name of Sadtler is referred to thruout the report. "Sadtler & Son, Sadtler & Son," as if Sadtler were a common commercial analytical chemist, of no standing whatsoever in this country. Not a hint is given, for instance, that that same Sadtler was for three years a member of that very sacred, exclusive and infallible body, known as The Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry of the American Medical Association. Not a hint is given that Sadtler is Professor of Chemistry in the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy; not a hint is given that that very Sadtler is a member of the Committee of Revision of the United

*With the intrinsic merits of the controversy, with the pros and cons of the analyses of either side, etc., I do not concern myself in this editorial.-ED.

States Pharmacopeia; not a hint is given that that self-same Sadtler is one of the authors of the United States Despensatory, which has served for so many years as the source of chemical and pharmaceutical information to thousands and thousands of physicians and pharmacists. "Samuel P. Sadtler & Son. a Philadelphia firm of analytical and consulting chemists"-that's the way the impartial referee refers to Professor Sadtler. And why? In order to take away any possible weight which Professor Sadtler's statements might have. The medical profession at large is not familiar with "Sadtler and Son," and for all the readers of the JOURNAL know, they might be a common commercial firm, ready to render any report that might be desired of them. This was the impression that the referee sought to convey and unfortunately he was successful.

And then see how Dr. Beates is treated. Dr. Henry Beates, president of the Pennsylvania State Medical Examining Board, has always been considered a staunch, loyal member of our association, a clean, capable and strictly ethical-perhaps some would say, ultra-ethical-physician. But just because he dared, in one instance, to express an opinion displeasing to the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry, he is treated as a criminal, or at any rate as an "unsafe" person, a suspect. This should be a lesson to all of us. And the theoretical laboratory doctor, Folin, taking the practical bedside-experienced physician Beates to task "as to why and how he came to lend his name in support of the literature, etc. (see J. A. M. A., May 8, p. 1511, 2nd line from bottom), is enuf to make the horses laugh and the angels weep. Is this what we have come to? Are we going to be taken to account for every independent utterance, for every remark displeasing to the bureaucratic ring, for every recommendation of a nonCouncil-approved remedy, for every criticism of their Royal and Imperial Highnesses, or even their flunkeys? Blessed are the fruits of bureaucracy and long live the Censorship. Quick, thou varlet, bring us the chain, the collar and the gag. Bring a hundred and twenty thousand of them, for we want to chain, collar and muzzle every physician in the United States of America.

Another important point. The Referee's report appears, of course, in full in the J. A. M. A. But the Organic Company`s defense, and Dr. Beates' reply to the referee (to his query as to why and how he came to lend his name, etc.), do not appear at all, but the complete pamphlet containing them "may be had on the receipt of a stamped, addressed envelope." Now, is this fair? The Council and the editors of the Journal know that not one in a hundred physicians will go to the trouble of sending for the pamphlet. If the matter were printed in the Journal, they would read it (and might perhaps reach different conclusions than the referee wants them to), but to send for a pamphlet, which is strongly discredited in advance-we are too busy for that. No, it is not fair. Either no attack on any man or firm should appear

in the journal, or if an attack does appear, space should also be given for the man's or firm's full, non-garbled defense. And let the readers of the Journal draw their own conclusions. Or is it not safe to let us draw our own conclusions? Must we have all our opinions first chewed for us by a nurse, then predigested and flavored by a censor, before we may swallow them?

Oh, damned bureaucracy!

You think it is a joke, gentlemen? It is no joke. If you knew the widespread intimidation that is going on, you would not think it a joke. I know of hundreds of cases where men obtained excellent results from certain non-official remedies, but refused to report their results for fear of being a persona non grata. I know of independent journals that refused scientific articles from men of high attainments and irreproachable standing, because the articles announced conclusions different from those obtained by the Council, and the courageous editors did not want to antagonize the latter. I know . . I know lots of things, but what's the use? Against stupidity the gods themselves fight in vain, said the noble poet, whose 150th birthday-anniversary we are going to celebrate the 10th of next November; and he was right. And often, at the conclusion of an argument, do I feel impelled to repeat the immortal Schiller's words.

Holding on to Office.

Leaving out all personalities, is it right for one man to hold on to an office perpetually, as if the association or section possessed no other man capable of filling it? And especially when there is a strong antagonism on the part of quite a respectable minority? Has the minority no rights which the majority is morally bound to respect? And doesn't it show a lack of fine feeling, delicacy and even decency on the part of such an officeholder to scorn all opposition and to be satisfied to be elected at any cost, even by a majority of one? Are not these legitimate questions for the members of an Association or a Section to consider?

Editors Then and Now.

There was a time when in order to be editor of a real influential medical journal, certain qualifications were necessary. The man had to be a prominent physician, with a large active practice. He had to be known as an able writer. He was often the author of well-known books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. He had as a rule an excellent classical education, and possessed a broad general culture. Now it is quite different. The man may be a doctor by courtesy only, he may have never sat in anguish at the bedside of a dying human being; he may have never felt a patient's pulse; he may have never written a line of scientific import; he may have never contributed an iota to the science or

art of medicine. These things are not considered essential now. All one needs possess is: a good deal of pull, ditto of effrontery, a fair amount of blatherskite, some assumed virtue, an ability to wear a collar no matter how tight, and a jelly-fish backbone. These qualifications are a sure passport to the editorial chair of an official journal.

Is a boozy, flatulent, ignorant druggist, who holds a fake, "honorary" M. D. degree from a defunct medical night-school (The Harvey School of Chicago), and who conducts a cheap correspondence school of pharmacy for the benefit of drug clerks of the backwoods, really the best man for the position of secretary of one of the most important sections of the American Medical Association? If he is, then God have mercy on our association.

And is such a man the proper man to teach ethics to the medical profession of America? If he is, then God have mercy on our profession.

And is such a man the proper person to decide what remedies are proper and ethical, what remedies we should and what remedies we should not use on our patients? If he is, then God have mercy on our patients.

A Fair Warning.

Of late, THE CRITIC AND GUIDE has been either silent or very moderate on some subjects of interest to the medical profession. We do a good many things for the sake of peace in the family. Nobody is more anxious than we are for peace, unity and harmony in the American Medical Association. But in order for peace to be a reality, and not an empty sound, certain elements in our Association, certain interlopers who have no business in our midst anyway, must step backward; they must leave the middle of the stage, and be satisfied with a back seat. And above all, the intimidation of the profession and the traducing and slandering of white, clean, honorable men, merely because they dare to differ from the powers that be, must cease! This is a sine qua non. If it does not cease, the CRITIC AND GUIDE will open such a beautiful fire that nobody will be able even to identify the remains of the enemy.

The CRITIC AND GUIDE artillery is in splendid working order, and we have enough powder and ammunition to last us a lifetime.

It is regrettable that with some opponents of fair play and decency we should have to act on the motto: oderint dum metuant.