Medical Association. The determination of the ineligibility of delegates claiming to represent alumni societies of medical colleges and of non-resident delegates was final, and has proven satisfactory to the profession at large. It set forth, furthermore, that frivolous and vindictive accusations against societies previously in good standing would not be tolerated, and that medical men who failed or refused to comply with the laws regulating the practice of medicine in the State or locality in which they resided and pursued the practice of their profession, could not secure representation in that body through vicious and unethical organizations, nor by any other device in contravention of the code of ethics and laws of the land.

This controversy led to the discovery that representation was multiplied in many cities, and that societies might be organized for the sole purpose of increasing the number of delegates from a particular locality, so that it was possible that the profession in the city or State in which it might meet could so multiply its representation as to control the legislation of the body. Such a direct and flagrant violation of the plain intent and meaning of the Constitution needed only such an exemplification as was shown to have occurred in 1870 in this city to demonstrate the necessity of some amendment that would make any similar effort an impossibility. To this end I prepared and offered at Detroit in 1874 (Transactions, vol. xxv. p. 33) the following amendment, which was adopted with great unanimity:

The amendments to the plan of organization offered at the last session were next taken up.

Offered by Dr. N. S. Davis, of Illinois:

Strike out the second paragraph of Article II. and insert the following:

The delegates shall receive their appointment from permanently organized State medical societies and such county and district medical societies as are recognized by representation in their respective State societies, and from the Medical Department of the Army and Navy of the United States.

Also strike out the fourth paragraph of same article and insert: Each State, county, and district medical society entitled to representation shall have the privilege of sending to the Association one delegate for every ten of its regular resident members, and one for every additional fraction of more than one-half of that number.

After some discussion, on motion of Dr. S. C. Busey, of the District of Columbia, the following proviso was added to the amendment: Provided, however, that the number of delegates from any particular State, Territory, county, city, or town shall not exceed the ratio of one in ten of the resident physicians who may have signed the Code of Ethics of this Association.

The amendment, with the proviso, was then adopted by a large majority.

Subsequent to this action of the American Medical Association the Medical Society of the District of Columbia abandoned its claim of representation in the American Medical Association, thus leaving the entire representation of the profession of the District of Columbia with the Medical Association of this District, which is the only medical organization in this District now in representative affiliation with the American Medical Association.

CHAPTER XIV.

The Trial and Expulsion of Dr. D. W. Bliss. His Reinstatement. The Admission of Dr. C. C. Cox to the Medical Association of the District of Columbia.

IN view of the facts and circumstances cited in the foregoing chapter relating to the conduct of Drs. Bliss and Cox, the demands of impartial justice require a full statement of the history and incidents of that controversy, that the condonation of their offences may be set forth with equal fairness and impartiality.

The publicity of the trial and expulsion of Dr. Bliss was the inevitable outcome of the publication, the day after the passage of the resolution of expulsion by the Association, of his card in the Washington Chronicle, announcing to the public the fact, and denying the power of the Association to discipline him; and, subsequently, his expulsion from the American Medical Association, assembled in public meeting at Philadelphia, in pursuance of the following communication:

At the annual meeting, April 2, 1872, "Dr. Busey offered the following resolution, which was adopted :"

Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to transmit a copy of the majority and minority reports of the Standing Committee of the Association in relation to the case of Dr. D. W. Bliss, together with a report of the action of the Association thereon, to the Secretary of the American Medical Association, to be laid by him before said Association.

At a special meeting of the Standing Committee, June 13, 1871, the Chairman, Dr. J. W. H. Lovejoy, laid before it the following letter:

WASHINGTON CITY, May 27, 1871. To the President and Members of the Council of the Medical Association of the District of Columbia

GENTLEMEN: Newspaper and current rumor justifies me in making the charge that Dr. D. W. Bliss, a member of the Medical Association of the District of Columbia, has been and now is in consultation with Dr. C. C. Cox (a gentleman known by him as being a rejected applicant for membership in the Association), thereby disobeying the sixteenth (16th) regulation and violating his sacred obligation.

I deem it proper to call your attention to this violation of said regulation, particularly as Dr. Bliss has publicly and openly declared he did this with the view to test the power of the Association to interfere in such cases.

As he is a prominent member of the profession, I deem it the more proper the Association should take cognizance of the case.

I hope prompt consideration of it will be had, and the Council will call on Dr. Bliss to affirm or deny this common rumor, for the vitality of the Association depends on the action of its Council at this time. Very respectfully, yours, etc.,

THOMAS MILLER.

Statements were also made to the committee by members thereof, of verbal communications made to them by members of the profession in corroboration of the charge made by Dr. Miller; one to the effect that Dr. Bliss "had said that he had consulted with Dr. Cox and intended to do so again, in defiance of the sixteenth regulation," and another that "Dr. Bliss had publicly made the statement that he had called Dr. C. C. Cox to consult with him in the case of the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, to test the power of this Association to enforce its regulation, and that he defied its authority." Thereupon the committee directed its Secretary to communicate in writing with the members named and request each one of them to state in writing all the facts within their knowledge in connection with the declarations made to them by Dr. Bliss, as previously stated, and adjourned to meet June 19th, at which time it requested the replies.

At the adjourned meeting the committee, after due consideration of the charge and testimony submitted, adopted the following preamble and resolution :

Whereas, It has come to the knowledge of the Standing Committee of the Medical Association of the District of Columbia that Dr. D. W. Bliss did meet Dr. C. C. Cox (the latter not being a member of the Association) in consultation at the bedside of the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, in violation of the sixteenth (16th) regulation, therefore be it

Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to communicate to Dr. D. W. Bliss the fact, and request him to answer in writing to said charge.

The above communication was accompanied with the request that he would respond on or before noon, Monday, June 26th, to which day and hour the committee adjourned. At the meeting, June 26th, there were present of the Standing Committee Drs. Lovejoy, Chairman, D. R. Hagner, Bulkley, Morgan, Mackall, Jr., A. F. A. King, Toner, Busey, and J. T. Young. The reply of Dr. Bliss was read, as follows:

DR. JAMES T. YOUNG,

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 21, 1871.

Secretary Medical Association, District of Columbia.

DEAR SIR: Your communication reciting the fact that I had held a consultation in the case of Vice-President Colfax with Dr. C. C. Cox, of this city (who was not at that time a member of the Medical Association of the District of Columbia), and requesting me to answer in "writing said charge,” has been received, and in reply I have to say that I did consult with Dr. Cox, regarding him, as did my illustrious patient, as an eminent physician, against whom no possible charge of violation of the ethics of the profession could be preferred, and believing, moreover, that the proscriptive rule adopted by the Association in his case was wholly indefensible and would invoke the disapprobation and censure of the entire profession throughout the country (as it has done), and the contempt of all sensible and cooljudging people. I will, moreover, inform you that I have violated your rule in another instance, having consulted also with Dr. Augusta, an educated and reputable colored physician (a licentiate, as is also Dr. Cox, of the Medical Association of the District of Columbia) who has equally fallen under your proscriptive and unwarrantable ban. I have the honor to be yours, etc.,

D. W. BLISS, M.D.

This response was not only a confession of his wilful guilt, but an insolent and defiant insult to the committee, which had