It is morally impossible for any medical man who has kept his eyes open for forty years, not to have been struck with certain obvious and incontrovertible facts, of which I present a few specimens. The _Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_, a few years since, in an obituary notice of Dr. Danforth, who had long been an eminent practitioner in Boston, makes the following remarks:-- "Though considered one of the most successful practitioners, he rarely caused a patient to be bled. Probably, for the last twenty years of his practice, he did not propose the use of this remedy in a single instance. And he maintained that the abstraction of the vital fluid diminished the power of overcoming the disease. On one occasion, he was called to visit a number of persons who had been injured by the fall of a house frame, and, on arrival, found another practitioner engaged in bleeding the men. 'Doctor,' said the latter, 'I am doing your work for you.' 'Then,' said Dr. Danforth, 'pour the blood back into the veins of those men.'" Dr. Thomas Hubbard, of Pomfret, Conn., long a President of the Medical Society in that State, was, on the contrary, accustomed to bleed almost all his patients. Yet both of these men were considered as eminently successful in their profession. How is it that treatment so exactly opposite should be almost, if not quite, equally successful? There was a discussion in Boston, many years ago, between Dr. Watson, one of the most successful old-school practitioners of medicine, and a Thomsonian practitioner, whose name I have forgotten, in the progress of which the former made the open and unqualified declaration, that, in the course of four years' practice, he had drawn one hundred gallons of human blood, and that he was then on the use of his thirty-ninth pound of calomel. Now both these men had full practice; and while one did little or nothing to break up disease or destroy the enemy, the other did a great deal; and yet both were deemed successful. Can we explain this any better than we can the facts in regard to Drs. Danforth and Hubbard? Let us look at the case of Dr. M., of Boston, a successful allopathic practitioner. In order to satisfy his curiosity, with regard to the claims of homoeopathy, he suddenly substituted the usual homoeopathic treatment for allopathy, and pursued it two whole years with entire success. Curiosity still awake, he again exchanged his infinitesimal doses of active medicine for similar doses, as regards size, of fine flour, and continued this, also, for two years. The latter experiment, as he affirms, was quite as successful as the former.