Dr. F. C. Hotz said that the extract of his letter to Dr. Doering, which was incorporated in the paper, indicated that at the time it was written he did not think favorably of the project. And, after listening with much interest to the doctor's arguments, he saw no reason for changing his opinion. Professional reputation and honor is the most personal of all personal property; if he lost it, it does not hurt anybody but himself, and therefore if any attack be made on it he should certainly wish to employ among the able lawyers the one in whose ability he had the greatest confidence. But he was not sure whether the lawyer retained by this protective union would be the one to whom he should like to trust the defense of his reputation. The attorney might be able, or abler, than the lawyer of his own choice; but should the case go against him, he should never feel satisfied that the lawyer had done all that could be done for him unless he had full confidence in him. It is with the lawyer as with the physician, a question of confidence, and his patrons find no fault with his treatment as long as they have implicit faith in his ability. An objection of greater weight, however, has been urged by several of the doctor's correspondents in asking what possible effect it might have if the fact was brought out in court that the defendant belonged to such a union? The lawyers whose opinions were obtained and read by the doctor, say it cannot legally affect the case. There is no doubt but what this is true. But the verdict of a jury in malpractice suits is not determined by the legal aspect of the case; and circumstances which cannot have any legal effect upon the case have often made a deep impression upon a jury and decided the case against the physician. To illustrate: In Dr. Bettman's first trial, the experts of the prosecution testified so unreservedly in the doctor's favor that had the case been submitted to the jury without arguments, the doctor would have been acquitted at once. To fortify his cause Dr. Bettman's lawyer called a number of experts, whose testimony was of course only cumulative. Now what did the prosecuting lawyer do? Did he make an effort to break down the expert evidence by scientific arguments? No, sir; but he wiped out its effect upon the jury by the mere waving of his hand, speaking thus: "The defense has piled up a mountain of expert evidence. But, gentlemen of the jury, what does it all amount to? These doctors are working together in the same hospital. Don't you see they have a common interest to sustain each other, because every one of them may be in the same fix some day? Don't you know they are clannish? They wont admit that one of them can make a mistake. O, no!" One could fairly see the impression this harangue made upon the jury, and they rendered a verdict against the doctor, though it is certain the lawyers will say the fact of his being associated with the experts in the