I have many times cured with it acute catarrhal conjunctivitis, phlyctenular conjunctivitis and keratitis and ulcers of the cornea, and have subdued the acute aggravations of conjunctivitis trachomatosa, where the above symptoms, or some of them, were present. It is also frequently successful in the treatment of abscess of the lid, which, while not a serious, is an extremely painful disease. Dr. W. A. Phillips, in an article published in the _Jour. of Oph., Otol. and Lar._, July, 1899, page 224, recommends the use of rhus tox., “when the ciliary muscle itself seems to be the special seat of trouble; when its muscular tone is disturbed from previous straining, and when inability is present after using the eyes for reading any considerable time, notwithstanding optical correction.” He has had much success with the drug in these cases and considers that its action here is on a plane with that on lameness or soreness due to rheumatism. In my opinion another factor may be spoken of. One of the differential points between arsenic and rhus is that the arsenic patient is _actually_ so weak that he cannot do what he would wish, while the rhus patient _feels_ so weak that he cannot do it, but by making the effort he can overcome his weakness and accomplish what he desires. This seems to indicate in the rhus case an indisposition to exertion due to want of _tone_ of the muscular system, and this explanation applied to the ciliary muscle would account for the successful action of this drug in the class of cases indicated. I would not have it understood that I consider rhus tox. an universal panacea for all the inflammatory diseases of the eye; all of these affections are many times extremely variable in their presenting symptoms and other remedies are frequently called for, but the drug under consideration is one of the first importance and is most reliable and efficient when accurately prescribed. TREATMENT OF SARCOMA WITH THE MIXED TOXINS OF ERYSIPELAS AND BACILLUS PRODIGIOSUS. BY A. WORRALL PALMER, M. D., NEW YORK. The numerous modes of treating sarcoma or any other variety of cancer, and the constant experimentation on the part of the profession with new methods, only go to show how inadequate is our ability to meet this intractable disease. These neoplasms are not so rare, as there are ninety-nine authentically recorded cases, situated within the restricted domain of the naso-pharynx and pharynx. For these reasons, and because I have been able to find only one case of sarcoma treated with Coley’s fluid reported in our homeopathic literature, do I take the liberty of occupying your time with the _résumé_ of my investigations into the subject and my meager practical experience.