W. J. Pearce, of Dodgeville; graduate of Rush Medical College, Chicago, Ill., 1881. D. C. Beebe, of Sparta; graduate of Albany Medical College, Albany, N. Y., 1863. W. T. Sarles, of Sparta; graduate of Rush Medical College, Chicago, Ill., 1882. J. E. Bacon, of Waukesha; graduate of Medical Department. of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.. 1873. Sebastian Keller, of West Bend; certified member of Rock River Medical Society. The report of the Censors was accepted, and the gentlemen therein named were duly elected members of the Society, after which the Society adjourned until June 2nd, at 9 o'clock A. M. WEDNESDAY, June 2, 1886-9 A. M. President Steele in the Chair. The Society was called to order, and the report of the Special Committee on the standard of preliminary education, which was signed by Drs. Epley and Gapen, was read by Dr. Epley: MR. PRESIDENT: Your committee regard a movement for a higher standard of preliminary education on the part of those intending to commence the study of medicine as one of great importance. There can, in our judgment, be no question of its being a movement in the right direction. In fact, there can be but one direction for action on the part of those who wish well for medical progress in the United States. Consider for example, if you please, that Chicago graduates each year more doctors (so-called) than does the whole German empire, and we may realize in something of its fullness the importance of this move. Your committee believe that the time has come, even in Wisconsin, not only for a "natural selection and the survival of the fittest," but for an intelligent educational selection. The report of the New Jersey committee on the subject contains the following, and as it bears directly and tersely upon this point, its reproduction in this report may be pardoned: "The time is coming when mediocrity will not be tolerated. Public education has so elevated the common mind that it will not much longer be incapable of distinguishing between real science and boastful pretension. When self-assertion, plausible manners, an imposing presence, a pompous vocabulary, or its opposite, coarse jocularity, and the show of learning without the substance, will cease to be the passport to popular confidence. The standard of scholarship and scientific knowledge in all the so-called learned professions must be raised, if they would not fall into merited contempt. Let us see to it that the title of 'Doctor '—with which common parlance has invested the physician-be a deserved distinction, and not a meaning. less misnomer. "The movement now under contemplation may be difficult of accomplishment, but if the profession is true to itself, in its personality and in its corporate organizations, there is no reason to despair of success." In the formulation of a standard curriculum of study, your committee has been guided measurably by expediency, rather than perfect excellence, believing that a minimum standard, well enforced, will be far preferable to one which could be branded as exclusive and tyrannical, and thus destined to become a dead letter; and to insist, rather, upon those studies which impress the "scientific method" and inspire a love for actual fact, regardless of pet theories or systems of philosophy. What we need most in our profession is careful search after fact in each individual case, open and sensitive eyes and ears, with skillful use of the instrumental aids to these, and sharp and intelligent discrimination, based upon close observation. Whatever, therefore, will fittingly prepare the student for this kind of work, should be included in his preliminary education. Your committee are aware that it will be much easier to adopt a set of resolutions regulating a standard of preliminary education. than it will be to enforce them after their adoption. A law without a penalty is incomplete and inert. The last clause in Article IX. of our Constitution provides that "It shall be the duty of the Censors of this Society to examine candidates for the study of medicine as to their educational qualifications: these qualifications to be a good knowledge of English and of mathematics; and no member of this Society shall receive a student into his office until such student shall present a certificate from the Board stating that he has the necessary preliminary education." An inquiry of the Censors would probably show that this rule is not quite, but very nearly a dead letter. If this be true, the article should either be enforced or abolished. Your committee have thought best to embody in this report and offer an amendment to Article IX as just read, so that it shall read as follows: "They shall also examine candidates for the study of medicine as to their educational qualifications, and shall appoint at each annual meeting of this Society two other Examining Boards, one in the northern and the other in the southern part of the State, whose duty it shall be to examine such candidates as shall present themselves for examination as students of medicine in their respective localities, such examinations to be held on the first Tuesdays in March, June, September and December, and at such place as the Board of Censors shall direct. Upon a satisfactory examination such Board shall issue a certificate, and the qualifications for such certificate shall be as follows: "A diploma from some reputable college, university or high school, or in lieu of this, or in addition to it, satisfactory evidence of a thorough knowledge of the English language, some of its literature and history, mathematics, including arithmetic and algebra; logic, geography, both descriptive and physical very thorough, natural philosophy, elements of physics, chemistry, and natural history, including botany and zoology, and no member of this society shall receive a student into his office until such student shall present a certificate from one of said boards, stating that he has the required preliminary education. Any violation of this article shall be deemed contempt of the Constitution, and the member so violating it shall be dealt with as the Society may deem proper." Your committee would recommend that these two appointed Boards be each composed of three persons, two of whom shall be members of this Society, the third a gentleman of acknowledged scholarly attainments outside the profession. Your committee would also recommend that this Society adopt strong resolutions against, and refuse to patronize in any way any and all medical colleges which do not imperatively insist upon a thorough preliminary examination of students presenting themselves at their doors, an examination which shall demonstrate conclusively that they are qualified to enter upon a final course of study, which, when completed, will place them in the ranks of what should be the most learned of all professions. And further, that this Society take into serious contemplation the subject of legislation to prevent our state from being overrun by charlatans, driven from other States by legislative acts, who seek refuge in Wisconsin. On motion, the report was referred to the Committee on Publi cation. The committee on the plan for inter-state correspondence, as proposed by the State Medical Society of Nebraska, was called upon for a report, but not being prepared, upon motion the committee was continued until the next annual meeting. The report of the Special Committee appointed at the last annual meeting for the purpose of making a test case to determine the rights of physicians when summoned as expert witnesses, was called for, and Dr. G. H. Fox, as chairman, responded, presenting the following Report of Committee on Expert Witnesses: “Instead of making a test case, the Committee on Expert Wit nesses waited (Micawber-like) for something to turn up in the legitimate course of events, which fortunately did on or about April 30th last (owing to thoughtfulness of Dr. Gapen), when the chairman of this committee was actually subpoenaed as an expert witness in a rape case, known on court calendar as State of Wisconsin against Peckham, I believe. Having answered summons, and while waiting for case to be called, made inquiries of two or three of the legal profession who are well reputed, the proper course to pursue. All without hesitation advised him to go about his own business, only submitting to actual arrest. By so doing he would, of course, be treating court with contempt, and for said contempt would and should be tried. 66 Acting in accordance with advice thus given, the chairman has been deprived of the satisfaction of receiving calls to appear before any local tribunal up to present time, but has received an explanatory apology from our honorable district attorney. GEORGE H. Fox, Dr. Fox presented in connection with his report the following explanatory letter from Dr. Gapen, addressed to the remaining mem bers of the committee: EXPLANATORY. DRS. FOX AND EPLEY: I asked the district attorney to summon Dr. Fox. He did so, and then in the excitement of the case forgot to call him on the stand. So a case of contempt was not made out. He has promised to call the Doctor again before the 1st, so that a case could be on the tapis to lay before the Society-and ask help. It is perhaps as well, for the former Judge would have ruled him not in contempt, while the next will, I think, rule contempt, so that it will make a case GAPEN. Dr. Robinson: I understand this is a report relative to expert testimony in court, and I would like to see the society take some action in the matter. We are called in cases that take considerable of our time, and are not given enough to pay our board; but we cannot refuse to go unless we have a test case. I would like to see the Society take some action that would enable us to refuse to go. If somebody will make a test case probably it will help us. Dr. Ladd: It seems to me the decision of a Judge will be re quired, and that there must be some law passed by the Legislature, so that there will be some rule to go by before anything can be accomplished. Dr. Gapen: The present status of the matter has been laid before you by Dr. Fox. We would have had this test case before a local tribunal competent to decide it on its merits but for this accident which he mentioned. Summons have been issued, and he has been virtually placed in contempt of court twice, but the District Attorney in each case, in the excitement of the case (the Doctor not being an absolutely necessary witness) forgot to call him. Of course he was absent. He was summoned, so as to be virtually placed in contempt. The District Attorney told me yesterday he would summon him again, and would certainly call him the next time and make it a test case. What Dr. Fox and I wished to do was to get this matter started before this meeting, and then the society would have been bound, having passed this resolution at its last meeting, to help him out. I have not the least doubt there would be a free subscription for that purpose. Making a test case will not end the matter, but will put it in such a light that we shall know how it stands. If the matter had come before the Judge at Juneau we would have been just as badly off as before. That Judge has said that he would decide that a professional witness was not bound to attend under such circumstances; but the Judge before whom the Doctor was summoned the second time has given a directly opposite opinion. All that could be done would be to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. We cannot make an appeal until we have a real case. I asked a Judge of the Supreme Court if they would hear a moot case, but they positively refuse to hear any moot cases, so we cannot get the question before that court and get a final decision until the matter goes there in proper shape. So, I think the proper move for the Society to make is to continue a committee for the same purpose and in the same line as the committee appointed last year, the committee to be empowered to make an assessment on the members of the Society of say $1 each for the expense of trying the test case. If the Supreme Court decides that a physician is not bound to appear and give testimony that will involve an opinion, that will end it. Of course, we must distinguish between questions of fact and |