I will cite but a single example in illustration of these remarks. Some years ago there was a warm discussion carried on among quite a large portion of the medical profession in New England, in regard to the general character of diseases in this part of the country, and their proper mode of treatment. One party, at the head of which was Dr. Gallup, asserted that the diseases of New England had been, since the beginning of the present century, almost altogether sthenic or inflammatory, and therefore had required depleting remedies. Another party, whose chief champions were Doctors Miner and Tully, contended that diseases had been asthenic, or characterized by debility, instead of an inflammatory tendency, and that they therefore required stimulants. While Dr. Gallup denounced the treatment of disease, pursued by the adherents of Drs. Miner and Tully, as “incendiary treatment,” and lauded bleeding as the chief remedy for the present time; Dr. Tully, on the other hand, says that “the lancet is a weapon which annually slays more than the sword,” and that “the king of Great Britain, without doubt, loses every year more subjects by these means”—depleting remedies—“than the battle and campaign of Waterloo cost him, with all their glories.” Now if it were easy, by looking at results, to decide in all cases what is good, and what is bad practice, it is evident that such diametrically opposite modes of treatment could not be in vogue at the same time. The proper distinctions would be made, and the good practice would be approved, both by the profession and by the public; while that which was seen to be injurious in its results would at once be rejected. So also, if it were easy to make this distinction, the truly skillful physician could always be recognized as such, while the unskillful and ignorant practitioner would not be able, as he now often is, to obtain from the public, in spite of his deficiencies and his blunders, the meed of praise due to real merit and actual success. The quack, too, would stand forth in his true light, in contrast with the man of science in the results of his practice, instead of claiming, with brazen effrontery, and receiving from the multitude, as he now often does, the credit of being even pre-eminently successful.