The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1876-12-28

Judge f. b. Turner:
Dear Sir-We are in receipt of your
favor discussing the position you have
assumed relative to the appointment of
medical examining board for this
district in pursuance of an act of the
Fifteenth Legislature.
In justice to the conduct we have
pursued throughout the entire matter,
and in vindication of ths~good faith
IN which we have opposed what we
have believed and still believe to be an
indignity to our profession and dis
eliminating reflection upon its honor
and integrity, we desire to make
some response TO the expressions con-
tanned in the document you have trans
mittcd for our consideration.
We desire here, once for all, to be
understood, and the necessity for q
clear enunciation of our position is
rendered the more imperative from
the evident injustice, both express and
implied, done to US throughout your
paper. We have no quarrel with any
irregular or pretended physician, or
with any irregular school of medicine
as sVch. Our opposition to the course
which you have indicated as the one
likely to be pursued byyou is solely and
entirely upon principle, and is dictated
by our unaltorable convictions of hon
esty and truth, and our carefully con-
sldered estimate of the duty we owe to
society at large. The fact that We de-
sire to exclude "hom@opath" from
the board Is an assumption of your
own. We have expressed no antago-
nism either to the gentleman inter
estel or to the school he Processes to
represent. We have made no mention
Of Homeopathy" as such; but our
opposition has been and still is to the
endorsement and elevation OF all ir-
regular practitioners whose tencts are
Subversive of rational science, whose
system of practice is based on patent
errors and absurdities, and whose
strength aud perpetuity are sustained
by appeals to the credulity OF public
necessarily ignorant of the principles
involved. OF our ethical obligations
in this regard we shall speak further
on. Suffice il here to state that We
make 70 war GA homeopathy" as
such; we have never even recognized
it by name as distinctive existence,
but have placed it on a common ground
with that Indiscriminate horde OF here
sizes and plausible knsverics whose
Foundation Is ignorance and whose
vitality is the creoulity and hclplessr es
of suffering public. Against all such
we make common cause, and IN so do
ing we Sre simply following the course
indicated by our honesty as men and
our honor as physicians.
Your citation of the Bill Of Rights
and The Constitution of the State are
certainly not objected to by US. We
are entirely corverssnt with the pro-
visions OF the organic law in refer
eHce to this subject, aud we apprehend
that the spirit ald intent of those
provisions are not unknown to US. The
history Of the passage both of the
clause IN the Constitution and the law
uader discussion is that they were
originated and supported by the school
OF medicine which you seem to think
Is the first TO advise their infraction.
The ',Act Regulating the Practice If
Medicine, now in force, wSs drawn
by = committee Of the State Medical
Association, composed wholly of regu-
lar practitioners, snd they supported
1t in an elAboEs,e. printed argument
before the Legislature, perusal OF
which we would suggest as admirable
exercise for one disposed, as you seem
to he, to give us credit for nothing but
an intriguing desire TO supplant "ho-
mmopAthyn aud secure . monopoly
10 ourselves. In obedience TO the pro
hibi1ion you hSve quoted from the
Constitution, and in pursuance Of the
line Of action which has characterized
similar legislation snder the control OF
the regular profession, all over the
country, Il was studiously sought 70
exclude from the proposed act ever
discriminating clause, and to place the
riteEIs23ln purely upon the
orth in the law.
therapeutics and
Il he division =