Resolved, That a new Special Committee of five be nominated by the Nominating Committee of the Society, and be appointed by the Society to review the Code of Ethics, and to report at the annual meeting of 1884 any changes in the Code that may be deemed advisable.

Resolved, That the report of this Committee be discussed at the meeting of 1884, and be then laid over for final action at the meeting of 1885.

Should this preamble and resolutions be defeated as a whole when put to vote, then the action of this year will stand confirmed by the whole profession of the State, and it will be then definitely settled that the old Code of Ethics needed but little change, excepting that consultation with legally registered quacks of all kinds, which were before prohibited, should now be permitted.

If the preamble and resolutions should be admitted, the preamble would be adopted as a mere recital of the facts, and the test vote would be upon the first resolution. If that was defeated it would necessarily defeat all the others, and would be equivalent to rejecting the preamble and resolutions as a whole. But, should the first resolution be carried, it would leave the whole matter exactly where it was before the appointment of the special committee, and then the question would be upon the second resolution. If this should be defeated, the defeat would carry with it the third and dependent resolution, and the effect of this defeat would show that the Society was satisfied with the old Code of Ethics as it has stood for so many years; or at least would show that as yet it was not sufficiently dissatisfied with it to run the risk of making changes at present which might prove hurtful rather than beneficial.

If, however, the second resolution should be adopted it would raise a new committee having the same precept or duty as the previous special committee. But this new committee would be appointed in a very different way, and in a way very much more in harmony with so important a matter. The Nominating Committee of the Society being made up anew every year by the delegates and permanent members of each of the eight old senatorial districts of the State meeting and selecting one of their number for this important committee, is necessarily a very fair and impartial committee and comes afresh very directly from the constituency of the State Society. If this nominating committee of nine men fresh from all parts of the State should nominate this special committee just as they nominate the officers of the Society, and then if the Society should confirm or modify the special committee so nominated, then the committee would be a far better representative of the will and the wishes of the profession at large than if appointed, as the last one was, by the President of the Society.

Should the first and second resolutions be carried and the third one be defeated, then the Society would proceed at once to a final action on the report of the committee, and should there happen to be only a few members present the important result would be reached through the bias of a two-thirds vote of the few, and the matter would have to be undone, if afterward it did not meet the approval of the many.

But, if the third resolution should be carried, the subject could be discussed as freely as might be desired, and would then go over for a year, thus giving plenty of time for any amount of deliberation and writing, and would come up for final action before a new audience fresh from the total constituency of the

Society. By this course a much larger proportion of the profession could think and act upon it with the chances for a much wiser decision. An effort was made at the last meeting to have the report of that special committee discussed and laid over for a year so as to come up for final action at the next annual meeting, but the motion was summarily defeated, and a final action was taken which careful deliberation does not sustain, and which probably could not have been taken in February next. This precipitate forcing through of an unexpected revolutionary measure by the mere power of six votes in a meeting of seventy votes, representing a constituency of over 3.800, is a kind of legislation always to be deplored, and which by its very precipitancy and urgency is far more likely to be wrong than right. The whole object of these resolutions is to ascertain whether in this particular instance of this kind, the action taken was wrong or right as judged by the profession to which it is thus arbitrarily applied.

The motion was carried and a special session was appointed accordingly for the discussion of the subject.

In receiving communications from county medical societies, four more or less vigorous protests against the action of 1882 were presented from Broome, Monroe, Oswego and Westchester counties, and were referred to the special session for consideration, but neither of these communications received any farther attention from the Society either at the special session or at any other time.

A communication from Kings County Medical Society was directed to be presented to the Society by the delegates, but as it was not heard of during the meeting, it may be as well to give a brief history of it in this connection in order to show the small courtesy and consideration the county medical societies received at the hands of the State Society.

A copy of the preamble and resolutions of the Kings County Society were forwarded by the Secretary to the Secretary of the State Society but never reached the body either through the Secretary or through the delegates.

66

At a regular stated meeting of the Medical Society of the County of Kings, held on Tuesday evening, June 20, 1882 (see Proceedings" of the Society for July, page 100), the President suggested that some action should be taken in regard to the action of the State Medical Society in the matter of the Code of Ethics, and thereupon the following resolution was adopted :

"Resolved, That the question of rejection or adoption of the Code of Ethics by the State Medical Society at its last meeting be considered by this Society at its October meeting."

At the regular stated meeting held October 17, 1882 (see "Proceedings " for November, page 174), the President called for the discussion of the action of the State Society on the Code of Ethics, which had been made a special order of business for this meeting. But a repetition of the notice for this special subject having been accidentally omitted from the notices for this meeting, the discussion was, on motion, postponed until the November meeting. This writer then offered the following preamble and resolutions as a basis for discussion and action at the November meeting, and moved that they be received and published in the "Proceedings," so that every member of the Society might consider them well beforehand so as to be able to discuss them and vote upon them after mature deliberation :

WHEREAS, It is known through the delegates of this, The Medical Society of the County of Kings, to the Medical Society of the State of New York, that the latter body did, at the annual meeting in February last, first discuss the abrogation of the entire Code of Ethics, and, that proposition having failed, did adopt the report of its Committee on the Code of Ethics, whereby that part of the Code which relates to consultations was not only prac tically abrogated, but a clause was substituted declaring that "members of The Medical Society of the State of New York, and of the medical societies in affiliation therewith, may meet in consultation legally qualified practitioners of medicine," which is in direct opposition to the former Code and to the Code of the American Medical Association; and

WHEREAS, This Medical Society of the County of Kings is in affiliation with, and is represented in both the Medical Society of the State of New York and the American Medical Association, it now finds itself with two Codes of Ethics which are in direct opposition upon the important subject of consultations, and with a by-law enforcing the Codes of both these bodies. If this County Society obeys the legislation of the State Society it must give up its affiliation with the National Association; while if it holds to the Code of the National Association, it is subject to be admonished by the State Society for this rejection of its by-law,-therefore, be it

Resolved, That this Society earnestly desires to retain its relations with both the State Society and the National Association, and, if possible, will do nothing to sacrifice its right to representation in either body.

Resolved, That this Society deprecates the principle of the State Society taking revolutionary action upon matters of general and important professional interest without consulting the wishes of its constituent county medical societies directly upon the points to be legislated upon.

Resolved, That this Society regrets the action of the State Society in regard to this clause in the Code of Ethics, and respectfully asks that the action may be reconsidered and reversed at the next annual meeting.

Resolved, That this Society is in favor of having a Code of Ethics, and of having one that may be in substantial accord with the principles of the old code of the State Society and the present code of the American Medical Association. Resolved, That a copy of this preamble and resolutions be forwarded by the delegations of this Society both to the State Medical Society and the American Medical Association, and that the said delegates be instructed to vote on this subject in the interest of these resolutions, upon whatever issue may arise concerning Codes of Ethics or their abrogation, because these resolutions express the will of a majority in the Society to be represented by said delegates.

These resolutions were accepted, recorded and published fully and freely, so that when they came up for action in November every member of the Society had had five months' notice of the intended action on the subject, and had had the resolutions before him for one month before being called upon to discuss and vote.

At the regular stated meeting, held November 21, 1882, see "Proceedings" for December, page 204, after another repetition of the notice on the card sent to every member of the Society, the resolutions were taken up and discussed separately, and after several amendments and substitutes were offered and lost, and after vigorous discussion at a large meeting, the preamble and resolutions were carried on secret ballot by a vote of 51 yeas to 40 nays.

Two of the substitutes offered and rejected by decided majorities were substantially for having no Code of Ethics at all.

As ample notice had been carefully secured to each member, and free and full discussion had, the inference was a fair one that this had settled the question for this Society.

But at the January meeting, with a much smaller number present (75 against 91), and without any previous notice given, a motion to reconsider the latter part of the last one of the resolutions instructing the delegates, was made, and after an animated discussion was carried, and that part of the resolution commencing with "and that the said delegates be instructed to vote," etc., was rescinded by a vote of 49 to 26.

66

When the final vote was taken, as also one to lay on the table, the yeas and nays were called for and were recorded, although strongly opposed by a member in the majority, on the ground that it was cracking the whip" over the heads of members to influence their votes. Thus the original preamble and resolutions remained to be the will of the Society, except that the instructions to delegates were rescinded.

As this movement had come upon many members of the November majority as a surprise, a call for a special meeting for February 1st was issued, with three days' notice, in order to determine, if possible, whether the decision of the November meeting, after ample notice, with 91 members present and voting, or that of the January meeting with 75 members present and voting, was the real mind of the Society. The special meeting was held with 100 members present and voting, and after a free discussion of the subject of sending instructed delegates to the State Society, the decision of the January meeting against instructions to delegates was sustained

by a secret ballot of 59 to 41. Early in the discussion, while the principal motion was pending, a motion was made that when the vote was taken it should be by secret ballot, and the mover characterized a vote by yeas and nays as a gag law" which had been put upon his majority side at the last meeting, and stated that his side of the question had lost the vote of an able and honorable member by the call for recording the yeas and nays, because said member would have voted for the reconsideration by secret ballot, whereas when he found his name and vote were to be recorded he felt obliged to vote against it.

At the January meeting two vacancies in the delegation to the State Society were to be filled for the unexpired term of the delegation, and the election resulted in the choice of one member who had from the first declared himself to be an opponent of all codes of ethics; and this election was claimed as showing that the Society had, with emphasis, changed its mind in regard to instructing delegates, and was now prepared to send a delegate who would certainly, as its delegate, vote in opposition to any code, or at least was free to vote as he pleased. But it was overlooked that the other delegate, elected at the same time, had freely expressed himself and voted against the New Code movement.

On Tuesday evening, when the State Society met in special session, a prearranged motion was made and carried that the Society go into Committee of the Whole House for the discussion of the subject, and the President called Dr. Alexander Hutchins, of Brooklyn, to the chair. The preamble and resolutions were then read from the Secretary's desk, and a motion was made and seconded that when the committee rise it shall report adversely to the passage of the resolutions.

In presenting the subject to the Committee of the Whole this writer then opened the discussion as follows:

"In assuming the grave responsibility of an attempt, by these resolutions, to reverse the action of this Society some explanation is demanded.

It is claimed that the action of the last annual meeting upon the subject of the Code of Ethics is contrary to the plan of organization of the Society, and to the letter and the spirit of self-government by majority rule, and therefore ought to be reversed.

The medical profession of this State is associated and organized under a law of the State, the title of which is, " An Act to Incorpo