nforth, 'pour the blood back into the veins of
those men.'"

Dr. Thomas Hubbard, of Pomfret, Conn., long a President of the Medical
Society in that State, was, on the contrary, accustomed to bleed almost
all his patients. Yet both of these men were considered as eminently
successful in their profession. How is it that treatment so exactly
opposite should be almost, if not quite, equally successful?

There was a discussion in Boston, many years ago, between Dr. Watson,
one of the most successful old-school practitioners of medicine, and a
Thomsonian practitioner, whose name I have forgotten, in the progress of
which the former made the open and unqualified declaration, that, in the
course of four years' practice, he had drawn one hundred gallons of
human blood, and that he was then on the use of his thirty-ninth pound
of calomel.

Now both these men had full practice; and while one did little or
nothing to break up disease or destroy the enemy, the other did a great
deal; and yet both were deemed successful. Can we explain this any
better than we can the facts in regard to Drs. Danforth and Hubbard?

Let us look at the case of Dr. M., of Boston, a successful allopathic
practitioner. In order to satisfy his curiosity, with regard to the
claims of homoeopathy, he suddenly substituted the usual
homoeopathic treatment for allopathy, and pursued it two whole years
with entire success. Curiosity still awake, he again exchanged his
infinitesimal doses of active medicine for similar doses, as regards
size, of fine flour, and continued this, also, for two years. The latter
experiment, as he affirms, was quite as successful as the former.

Do not such facts as these point, with almost unerring certainty, to the
inefficiency of all medical treatment? Do they not almost, if not quite,
prove that when we take medicine, properly so called, or receive active
medical treatment; we recover in spite of it? Is there any other
rational way of accounting for the almost equal success of all sorts of
treatment,--allopathic, botanic, homoeopathic, hydropathic,
etc.,--when in the hands of good, sound, common sense, and conjoined
with good nursing and attendance? Is it not that man is made to live,
and is tough, so that it is not easy to poison him to death?

But the most remarkable fact of this kind with which I am acquainted, is
the case of Isaac Jennings, M.D., now of Ohio. He was educated at Yale
College, in Connecticut. During the prog