themselves, but merely to those not attacked by the disease. This would be no argument against the minuteness of the doses which pure experiments have proved to be necessary in homoeopathic treatment."

Finally, as to the axiom which Dr. Reith claims to be "the first" to state Medicines whose recognized physiological action is, in reality, their secondary manifestation, when indicated by the pathology as proper remedies for a particular disease, are unsuitable for and injurious in that disease when given so as to develop the physiological symptoms," (although this, as from an allopath, is a great improvement on Christison's advice to push a remedy until its physiological effects are produced)—we recognise the same idea in the following passage of Hahnemann's Organon, § 280: "The doses of all homœopathic medicines. without exception, are to be attenuated to such a degree that, after being introduced into the body, they shall merely produce an almost insensible aggravation of the disease." By all homoeopathists it is admitted and affirmed the dose should be such as not to produce the "medicinal aggravation," which is what Dr. Reith calls the "development of the physiological symptoms."

Considering Dr. Reith's small experience in the use of drugs according to the law-similia similibus curantur—and his crude ideas of what constitute the indications of remedies under that law, his protest against "infinitesimals" and in favor of "very small doses," is almost ludicrous. We refer him to the test to which he has himself appealed-experience; and we wish him a long and busy professional life

Nor do we care to dwell on the seeming littleness of mind which could induce a physician, instead of frankly aeknowledging the truth of views hitherto rejected by his school, to bring them forward as original with himself, and novel; to announce, as a discovery of his own, a power so well known as the screw! Rather let us rejoice that, however ungraciously and awkwardly, a clearheaded antagonist has acknowledged the truth in medicine, and has reformed his practice; and let us wish his colleagues, everywhere, as clear an insight and greater manliness.

Now when the revolution in the theory and practice of the allopathic school, which these writings of Dr. Reith surely presage, shall be in full tide of accomplishment, and the essential points of homoeopathic doctrine shall be universally admitted, and shall be working to their ultimate conclusions, impelled by the joint energy of the then united medical profession-the law, the morbid sus.

ceptibility, the single remedy, the minimum dose—what will be the position of those "homoeopathists" who are now so eager to protest against "Hahnemann's errors;" who compound remedies in their prescriptions; who would restrict the application of the law within narrow limits; and who give doses in comparison with which those recommended by Dr. Reith, the allopath, are almost infinitesimal? And all this to conciliate the dominant school! Verily, "they do not discern the signs of the times."

We cannot take leave of Dr. Reith without a reference to his practical remarks upon aconite. He says:

"1. In the first place, the secondary action of aconite being analogous to the febrile state, we infer that it will prove remedial in cases of simple, uncomplicated fever. 2. *** The dose must be correspondingly small; and, on account of the exceeding susceptibility of the paralyzed sympathetic to stimuli, care must be taken to regulate the dose accordingly."

"The first proposition excludes aconite entirely from the domain of specific fevers (except, perhaps, rheumatic fever *** ). I have used it extensively in typhus and enteric (typhoid) fevers, without the least advantage ** *. It is vain to expect any good from it in such cases. Belladonna is so beneficial, that I have not resorted to aconite when treating erysipelas. Mr. Liston spoke highly of aconite in the last-named disease, but his example does not seem to have been followed." [Is not Dr. Reith mistaken in this? Mr. Liston spoke highly of belladonna in erysipelas; and, we believe, he had the manliness to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. Quin, the homœopathist, for the suggestion to use it.] "Then, again, even in inflammatory fever, for which it has been highly extolled, and with reason, no impression will be produced on the symptoms, if there be extensive local lesion. In such a case, the medicine acting physiologically on the affected part, is the remedy properly indicated, whether it be belladonna for meningitis, antimony for pneumonia, or cantharides for nephritis. The use of aconite must, therefore, be limited to simple fever without local complication ***. The true place of aconite is at the onset of local inflammations or the congestive stage."

**

In an article entitled "Observations upon Aconite," published in the "American Homœopathic Review," vol. VI, 1865, we find the following remarks: "Aconite produces, so far as we know, almost no localized diseased conditions. It gives evidence of dyscrasia. Its action bears no resemblance to that of

*

*

*

the poison which produces any of the miasmatic diseases, such as the exanthemata or typhus or intermittent, remittent or continued fevers. Neither does its action, from beginning to end of a fatal case of poisoning, resemble the well-defined course of any local acute inflammation—as of the brain, heart, lungs, etc. For these reasons, aconite can never come into requisition for any of the miasmatic fevers or dyscratic diseases. Aconite can never be the single remedy by which a patient may be safely carried through a complete course of pure, acute inflammation of any organ or system; because, in the action of aconite, that localization is lacking which is an essential feature of these diseases. Yet, in all of these pure inflammations, there is a period in which aconite may be indicated and may do a heroic work— the first stage of arterial excitement, prior to the stage

which is characterized by change of function and of tissue and by local deposit."

It is, of course, possible that Dr. Reith may not have seen this article, but the same views are expressed, and this article is quoted, by Dr. Richard Hughes in his "Manual of Pharmacody namics, London, 1867," a work which must have come into the hands of so well-read a physician as Dr. Reith.

And, as we take leave of the subject for the present, let us assure Dr. Reith that, even in his expression of surprise that his colleagues, who found the ordinary doses of aconite too dangerous, never thought of making them smaller, he has been antici pated by Hahnemann. Dr. Reith says: "It seems singular that, when they found five minims to depress the heart too much, they did not try four, 'three, two, or even one. If they had done so, the value of aconite would have been by this time universally acknowledged."

Hahnemann (Introduction to Colocynth, Mat. Med. Pura, VI, page 173, 1827), after saying that, by reason of the large doses used, colocynth had come to be regarded as a dangerous remedy, and that, to obviate the danger attending its use, various corrigentia had been devised and added to it, which, however, did not alter the nature of the drug, uses substantially the following language: "It is a matter of wonder that in the schools of medicine men seem to have avoided reflection, and that, in such circumstances as these, the simple, childlike thought should never have occurred to them that if heroic drugs in certain doses act too powerfully, this depends less upon the drug than upon the

excessive dose, and that the dose may be diminished as much as may be necessary; and that such a diminution of the dose, while it leaves the drug unchanged in its properties, only tones down its strength, making it innocuous and useful; and therefore this must be the most natural and suitable corrigens of all heroic drugs. If a pound of alcohol, drunk at once, can kill a man, this depends not upon the absolute poisonous nature of alcohol but upon the too great dose. Two drops of alcohol would not have harmed the man. Whereas a drop of strong sulphuric acid immediately vesicates and corrodes the spot of the tongue upon which it is placed; on the other hand, when diluted with 20,000 or 100,000 drops of water, it affords a mild, slightly acid liquid. These facts show that the most natural, the simplest corrigens of all heroic substances is found alone in the dilution and diminution of the dose until it becomes useful without being hurtful."

ARTICLE CXIV.

Case of Malformation of the Occipital Bone. Large Congenital Tumor in connection therewith. By D. F. BISHOP, M. D., of Lockport, Niagara county, N. Y.

The following very singular case is deemed worthy of presenta tion to the medical profession, being remarkable in its character, and, as far as my knowledge extends, it is the second case on record in which malformation of this character has occurred in the cranium. Professor Wilson, of Cleveland, has reported a similar case, giving details of an operation.

Female child, weighing ten pounds at birth; fourth child of healthy father but scrofulous mother. The older children are well formed and healthy. At the birth of this child a large tumor was found located in the occipital region, measuring 19 inches in circumference, attached closely with a pedicle about two inches in diameter. The child's head, the pedicle, and about one-third of the tumor, were well supplied with hair. A natural warmth pervaded the entire body as well as the tumor. as well as the tumor. Respiration regular but exceedingly feeble. The child was fed with a spoon, and all the functions of the body were fully established. On the fourth day the tumor seemed more tense, the breathing become irregular and difficult, when, on account of a slight spasmodic tendency, it was thought best to evacuate the sac. In performing the operation, a small trocar and canula were used. After removing a large quantity of serum, the integument collapsed to the base of the pedicle, which appeared to be a hard mass, somewhat larger than a goose egg, and firmly attached to the occipital bone. The breathing then became regular, the spasmodic 'action ceased, and the child opened its eyes for the first time. After a few hours of apparent relief, prostration incident to the operation came on; stimulants were used freely upon the surface, and were administered to the stomach. From this time the sac gradually filled again, until it reached about two-thirds of its original size. The child gradually declined in strength, and without marked symptoms, died on the 29th day after its birth. Immediately after death the photograph here exhibited was taken, and a post mortem examination made in the presence of several physicians.

A circular incision was first made around the attachment, em