who are already in the profession, be forced to abandon a calling which, if legitimately followed, leads to want and poverty: whilst others less scrupulous will resort to methods which will put bread into their mouths, but will bankrupt them morally. It is from the ranks of the profession that many abortionists come, men who at one time were probably honest and honored, but driven to desperation they become murderers and live upon the sacrifices of innocent life. It has been said that the remedy for all of these evils was in the hands of the profession at large, and it is no doubt so, to a great extent; but how can you eradicate an evil when the source still lives, and is constantly pouring its muddy stream into the great river? Can you purify a stream whose supply comes from innumerable rivulets of poisoned water? Until the standard of medical education is raised, and its honors placed so high as to be coveted by the best and highest intellects in the land, can we expect relief from the profession alone, independent of the colleges? It is evident then that the profession cannot be benefitted by any process whose tendency is to create a greater supply of doctors than is necessary for the welfare of the people. In Europe the Governments take care that the supply and demand shall be carefully regulated. The consequence is, that all over Europe, a doctor is an honored man. In some places his diploma is considered as a patent of nobility. Alas! how different in this land of isms. There are dwellers in the land of Utopia whose brains are always filled with strange exaggerations. Men who dream of great things that they expect to accomplish in this land where systems of philosophy are born and launched into perfection in a single night; where grand castles of matchless proportions are built without means; where everything seems to be perfect and possible. Some of these Utopians dream beautiful dreams. They improve wonderfully upon the ways of this world, and are astounded that the heathens of this real land of ours will not see things as they see them, or think as they do. Medicine, as well as other walks of life, has its Utopian philosophers. These men fancy, that by making every man his own doctor, humanity will be benefitted. They are all humanitarians and are close kin to that innumerable band of progressionists who are willing to cut loose from the traditions of the past and launch forth into all the modernisms of the day, from conservatism to radicalism, or from puritanism to free-loveism. They confound the benefits of free or cheap common education with free and cheap professional education, when there is really little comparison between them. Every sane mind will be improved and the individual benefitted by education, provided, however, always. that one is educated in a way to be of most service to oneself, or to mankind in general. It is not progress to educate people in a way to make them dissatisfied with themselves or with the station in which they are obliged to live. It is the education that teaches men and women to be better, more useful and industrious, that is needed, and not that which teaches them that honest labor is degrading. It does not follow that by making every man proficient in law, medicine or divinity, the individuals or humanity would be benefitted. Division of labor is one of the great axioms of political economy, and has a special application to this subject. But the laborer must be sure of just and sufficient recompense or he is a dull and inefficient work man. Again, these Utopians are great clamorers for the rights of the people. Now let us inquire how the people are benefitted by cheap doctors. Do they want men, who commencing the study of medicine without much preparation, are rushed through a medical college in two short winters, and with such a little expenditure of intellectual labor or money as not to have been impressed with the great importance of their calling? No sir! The people whose lives are to be intrusted to their medical advisers want men who have been thoroughly impressed with the high responsibility which rests upon them, when they become clothed with the mantle of the profession. It is to their interest to have men who have devoted themselves mentally and physically to the elevation of the great truths of medicine: truths deep and difficult to penetrate, calling forth all the energy of heart and brain to master. Little benefit would it be to the people to have doctors thrust upon them whose professional education had been obtained so easily as to have their minds groping in the dark, utterly unable to comprehend the wonderful workings of nature, the grand high priestess of medicine, standing at the door of our science, blinding the eyes of the ignorant, but an effulgent light to those who are capable of understanding her grand teachings and applying them to the eradication of disease and the prolongation of life. Human life! how lightly do some men value it. How light, alas! do some doctors look upon it. A toy with which they can play, or a sealed book into whose mysteries they have failed to penetrate. How many hecatombs of human lives have been sacrificed by the medical schools, which are vieing with each other in their facilities for launching out doctors with quickness and dispatch. Prof. White, of Howard University, says in a recent lecture delivered to his class: "Unless a change is wrought where I consider the trouble lies, namely, in our medical schools; so long as it is held that there is a demand for cheap doctors in this country, and that an American can get as good a medical education in three short years, without any necessary preliminary mental training, as a Prussian or Austrian youth thoroughly drilled to methods of work and habits of industry can get in six years, or one good enough at any rate, so long shall we make poorly educated doctors and nothing else, or we should do so at least if students themselves did not know better and act accordingly in exceptional cases." Again he says: "Do we ever reflect that the multitudes of medical stndents in Berlin or Vienna are a reproach to our country?" It is common for advocates of cheap medical education in this country to refer to the European schools as examples of the great benefit of such a plan. Doubting whether the system of education which is found to work so well in Europe will ever be adopted, or even be found applicable to this country, so different in manners, customs and government to those of the old world, yet I am willing to admit that medical teaching and medical colleges in Europe are far in advance of those of the United States; and I think that they ought to be. They have had far more experience than we have had, and few of the governments being afflicted with spread-eagle notions as to the rights of man, all laws have to be obeyed and respected. We therefore admit at the start, that medical education in most European schools is superior and more thorough than it is in this country. Now, let us see if it is also cheaper. It is true that the lectures of the Professors in most foreign schools are free to the student. But what difference does it make whether he has to pay his money out for inscriptions and a variety of other things, or for lectures? Money he must have, and that in no small amount, or he cannot graduate in any European school that I have ever heard of. In France there are only three schools, or faculties, which are permitted to grant diplomas. Just think of that, in the first place as compared with the number in this country. One of these is located at Paris, one at Montpelier, and one at Strasbourg. The Professors are selected with great care, after proving themselves thoroughly qualified to teach. Their salaries vary from eight hundred to twenty-five hundred dollars for each chair, and are paid by the government. There are twenty-nine Professors and the same number of assistants. The lectures go on for eight months in each year, one session of five months and one of three months. In addition to the lectures at the school of medicine, clinical lectures are delivered at the different hospitals. The student must inscribe his name once in every three months At the time of taking out his first inscription, he must deposit with the Secretary, first, his certificate of birth; second, his parent's or guardian's consent (should he be a minor) for him to study medicine; third, a certificate of his morality; fourth, his diploma of Bachelor of Letters. In addition, after his fourth inscription, he has to show his diploma of Bachelor of Science He must study for five years and submit to five examinations. Some years since, four years were thought long enough, but it was extended to five, upon the ground that the profession was being too much crowded from the short time that it took to graduate. Now for the expenses of the free schools of France: The stu dent must deposit thirty francs for each of the sixteen inscriptions; then he has to pay ninety francs for each of his five examinations, and two hundred and forty for his thesis and diploma. To make the thing plain I will present a table of expenses, which I extract from a recent letter from Paris: First-Two Bachelor Diplomas.. Second-Sixteen inscriptions, thirty francs each.. Fifth-Five doctor's examinations and diploma, ninety francs each.... Sixth-Examination of Thesis.. Eighth-Doctor's gown... Total...... 1900 francs. which is equal to three hundred and eighty dollars in gold. Five years is the average time, but few get through earlier than six, while many are seven years. The actual expenses, you see, paid for instruction, or for the privilege of attending lectures with a view of graduating, is more than double what it takes to graduate at the most expensive school in the United States. In addition to this we must take into consideration the amount of money spent in getting ready to commence the study of medicine. For although the most of the Universities are free (so called), yet we find that the actual outlay of money is so great that comparatively few young men can afford to become sufficiently well educated, to even commence the study of medicine. Then the amount that has to be expended for board, clothing, etc., for the five or six years spent in study, is quite an item of expense. It is true that the professors are independent of these fees paid by the student, and it is probably best that they should be. I am not arguing as to how the professors should be paid or what amount they should receive for their services. My object is to show that cheap medical education is not the plan by which good and learned physicians are to be made, and I wish to make it plain that in foreign countries where they have had the experience of centuries in devising the best method for teaching, and where the governments pay especial attention to the preparation of their doctors, cheapness or great facilities for entering the profession are not considered essential, but rather as draw backs. Indeed, great preparation and long study, necessarily entailing a heavy expenditure of money, are, however, considered as paramount. The inducement which is held out for this great outlay of time and money is that the ratio of supply and demand is so carefully regulated that once a young man has his diploma secure, he is almost sure of a competency, and has no fear that he will be compelled to abandon a profession which has cost him so much, to engage in other pursuits for the purpose of making a living. Again, it has cost him so dearly as to be an object of pride, not to be cast aside as a useless title. In Germany we find about the same system prevailing. The expenses probably are not quite so heavy in Prussia, but much more so in Austria. The preliminary examinations are more searching, and so many obstacles have to be overcome before and during the time of study, (which lasts from four to six years), that few are willing to encounter them. The Professors are all appointed and paid by the government. In Berlin the number of Professors is twenty-eight, with thirty-nine assistants. The salaries vary from five hundred to two thousand dollars. The student has to pay as he does in France, so that when he graduates, even in that cheap country, where every thing is very cheap, when compared with this country, the actual sum of money paid out amounts to more than it takes to graduate in any first-class school in the United States. Now you might suppose that after all this preparation and expenditure of time and money-for he has to be in actual attendance upon lectures for ten months out of each year, for five or six years-he would be allowed to practice upon showing his diploma. It is not so; he has now to submit to a more strict and rigid examination, before the State examiners, which board is appointed by the government, and is entirely independent of the colleges. This entails upon him still more expense. It is clear then, it seems to me, that it is sheer nonsense to compare free or cheap medical education in this country, with the socalled cheap medical education of France and Germany. Here two short courses of lectures, (and it is not even obligatory to attend them,) comparatively no preparatory training, and, if the system recommended by the Faculty of the Mobile College should meet with approval, no expenditure of money will be required. Then what are we to expect? Will our noble and God-like profession be held aloft upon the shoulders of intellectual giants? or, will it not be dragged down lower and lower by the pigmies who will enter it because it requires neither capital nor intellect to become a doctor? In Great Britain they make no pretensions to cheap medical education. The Professors are paid by fees collected from students, and the expense is simply enormous, amounting to much more than in any other country, while the requirements made upon the students are as strict as on the continent. To show what opinions other men entertain, who have given the subject great thought, I propose to make a few quotations which I find prepared by Dr. Gaillard, and sent out in a circular from the Louisville Medical College. Sir Charles Bell 66 says: That governments should equalize the fees paid for lectures, because inferior teachers offer to teach at half price. Their recommendation is that they give their certificates cheaply." Prof. Caldwell says: 66 It may be said that nothing great or useful can be done on the score of instruction without money. We do allege this openly, and challenge refutation. We simply contend that the laborer is worthy of his hire. The more work he does and the |