Report of the trial. The people versus Dr. Horatio N. Loomis, for libel. : Tried at the Erie County Oyer and Terminer, June 24, 1850. Justice Mullett, presiding. John Treanor, Leander J. Roberts, associate justices. Reported by Frederick T. Parsons, stenographer.

Date:
1850
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the trial. The people versus Dr. Horatio N. Loomis, for libel. : Tried at the Erie County Oyer and Terminer, June 24, 1850. Justice Mullett, presiding. John Treanor, Leander J. Roberts, associate justices. Reported by Frederick T. Parsons, stenographer. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/50
    Under the conviction that instruction at the bed-side of the patient is essential to the young practitioner, the Frofessoi of Obstetrics in the Uni¬ versity of Buffalo, during its last session, with the entire concurrence of every member of the Faculty, undertook to supply the graduating class with this additional means of improvement. In entering upon the execut on of this design he en¬ deavored to exercise the utmost circumspection in avoiding every thing which would unnecessarily excite public prejudice. Not only were strict de¬ corum and propriety of conduct insisted upon and observed, but the members of the class were enjoined to maintain the most profound silence on the subject in their intercourse with the citizens. Nothing was heard of the matter until the resolu¬ tions of the class, tfie reply of the professor to whom they were addressed, and a few accompany¬ ing editoral remarks appeared, [see Appendix A.] early in February last, in the Medical Journal, a suitable medium for Medical News, being read al¬ most exclusively by Medical Men. The article in the Commercial Advertiser, on the l9th, [-ee Appendix B.] of the same mouth, was written by the able Editor ofthat print, in the hope of allaying the then existing excitement. The only publica¬ tion on the part of the Faculty of the College or any of its members, except in the Medical Journal previous to this time, was a series of resolutions [see Appendix C. ] assuming the responsibility of the transaction, and as-uring the public that it was not without precedent, and was undertaken to pro¬ mote the interests of the students in the acquisition of useful knowledge, and thereby the interests of Medical Science and of humanity. That it should have become necessary to ob¬ trude a subject of so much delicacy before the public is greatly to be regretted. ’But the various publications in the religious and secular Journals, the anonymous handbills which were scattered through the city, and the still more exaggerated reports which were currently circulated, seemed to render it highly proper that, since the public were compelled to hear and judge in the matter, they should be put in possession of the facts as they transpired, and some of the arguments in favor of its adoption adduced. In order to accom¬ plish this end in the most authoritative manner, it was obviously desirable that those whose testi¬ mony was relied on to establish the history of tho case, should be placed under the obligations of an oath, and confronted by those who contended for a different state of facts, thus giving full opportur nity to elicit the truth. The better to secure this end and .spread out all the facts of the case, tyhieh was the principal object of the prosecution in so far as the coniplainant was concerned, the ser¬ vices of Jesse Walker, Esqr,, and Mr. f’rederick T. Parsons, stenographic reporter, were secured, and they were charged to supp'y a complete and impartial report of the trial. The entire responsi¬ bility was thrown upon them, and they have given the testimony of each witness without any abridge¬ ment. The opening of Mr. Austin for the people, and Mr. Putnam for the defence ; an abstract of the Hon. H. K. Smith’s argument for the prosecntion { and the charge of Judge Mullett, are also ii>- cluded. The several documents referred to in the course of the trial are addf d in the Appendix, all of which are submitted without comment. Believing that this is one of those questions the merits of which medical men can best appreciate, and thO;, Medical Journals are the best expositors of the en¬ lightened sentiment of the profession, it was thought proper to add extracis from those publish¬ ed in the various sections of this country. Nearly all have expressed themselves upon the subject, and all' the Editorial articles which have come to hand are inserted either in part or entire, omitting nothing which is adverse to Demonstrative Mitt wifery. The object of this publication is to submit the whole matter to the judgment of the reflecting and impartial reader, under the confident beliw that at least justice will be done to the motives which prompted the introduction of a clinical de¬ monstration in connection with instruction in midwifery, in the University of Buffalo ; and that even if there should exist some difference of opin¬ ion respecting the importance or expediency of this method of teaching, few wid be found whoi,. with a proper understanding of the facts, will b« willing to stigmatize it as ‘‘' wholly unnecessai*y, and grossly offensive, alike,to morality and com-' mon decency.” [See letter of seventeen physi- cians, addressed to Austin,jPliut, Editor, &c.] J. P. W.