This was very _naïve_, and as good illustration of the value of evidence in relation to one thing (his provision for his relatives) which is stated in relation to another. Herein Sir Astley exposed a weakness with which the democratic opponents of President Grant have accused him, viz., of furnishing comfortable positions for his relatives. Sir John Forbes, when at the head of the medical profession of England in 1846, wrote an earnest appeal to his brethren to rescue their art from the ruin into which it was falling, saying in relation to modes of curing diseases, "Things have become so bad that they must mend or end." This was "dangerous ground," and some physicians of the day feared Dr. Forbes had done an immense mischief. After his death, be it remembered, some of the "medical magnates" of this country virtuously refused to subscribe to his monument fund, saying, "it was a misfortune to mankind (?) that he had ever lived." Dr. W. A. Hammond, surgeon general of the United States, also blundered when, by an order dated at _Washington, May 4, 1863_, he struck calomel from the supply table of the army. This proscription was on the ground that "it has so frequently been pushed to excess by military surgeons, as to call for prompt steps to correct its abuse.... _This is done with the more confidence, as modern pathology has proved the impropriety of the use of mercury in very many of those diseases in which it was formerly unfailingly administered._" _The American Medical Times_ (regular) said, "The order appeared not only expedient, but judicious and necessary, under the circumstances." _What_ circumstances? Read on further, and the _Times_ editor explains: "No evil can result to the sick soldier from the absence of calomel, however much he may need mercurialization, when such preparations as blue pill, bichloride and iodide of mercury, etc., remain. But, in prescribing these latter remedies, the practitioner generally has a very definite idea of the object he wishes to attain, which is not always the case in the use of calomel." By this timely order it was estimated that ten thousand soldiers were released from a morning dose of calomel! Was this a blow aimed at "quackery"? Was Dr. Hammond, "a member of the medical profession highly esteemed for scientific attainments," attempting a reform in medicine? Any way, Dr. Hammond shared the fate of all medical reformers. He was suspended. He was disgraced.