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.
The American Medical Association met at Chicago, and set up a strong opposition to the “order.” Certain persons brought charges against the surgeon general. A commission was appointed. The Times said, “The whole affair has the appearance of a secret and deliberate conspiracy against the surgeon general.... The commission is, in the first place, headed by a person known to be hostile to the surgeon general. This fact throws suspicion upon the object of the investigation.” Just so. The “object” was to appoint some one instead of Dr. Hammond, who would repeal the obnoxious order. No matter what pretence was set up beside, this is the fact of the case, and the people and the profession know this to be true.
But how shall we judge of the motives of Dr. Hammond but by appearances? Who so well knew the value, or injury, of calomel, as he who had used it for twenty odd years? Admitting Professor Chapman, of Philadelphia, was within twenty years of right when he said, “He who resigns the fate of his patient to calomel, ... if he has a tolerable practice, will, in a single season, lay the foundation of a good business for life,” did not Dr. H. exhibit a little selfishness in attempting to deprive young practitioners of the opportunity of laying for themselves a foundation for a prosperous future?
“Doubtless,” said a medical journal of the day, “all quacks and irregulars are congratulating themselves upon the appearance of this ‘order.’” This leads us to ask, “Who are the quacks?”