That I hoped that matters Louisville, Ky., August 14, 1885. Dear Doctor: Your letter of the 11th just re journal, or in some Eastern journal whenever I was able, etc., etc. might at least be so far reconciled as to disarmceived. In your letter of July 4th to Dr. Roberts, opposition, though I could not see how it could be carried to the point of regaining the support of the seceders. Well, I told him much more, and however much Dr. S. may be disliked here, I have nothing to do with that, and however great may be the feeling against him, he is an active, quick, and strong man, and an ugly customer to handle. I am now out of the Congress. My companions are many, embrace names which represent brains, position, and large influence. I am glad I am out, and, as at present advised, I shall stay out. I wish now that Dr. W. had published nothing in the papers, or that I hadn't seen it. But I couldn't well have missed seeing it, as I received three marked copies of the Courier-Journal containing it. Having seen it, I felt so sure that the Doctor had done me a great wrong, that I took the pains to learn just how matters in committee stood. The result you now know. I am your attached friend, D. W. YANDell. Louisville, Ky., August 6, 1885. Dear Doctor: From your letter of July 4th to Dr. W. O. Roberts, I quote the following:— "I had a friend see several members of the committee to which Wathen belonged and make inquiries concerning his action at Chicago, with the result of being assured that he was the only member of the committee who showed himself to be my enemy. . . Assured at W.'s end of the line in the newspapers that HE had me appointed. Assured at this end that he was the one man who strove to defeat my REappointment." Would you please to give me your authority for the above? Very truly yours, D. W. Yandell, M.D. W. H. WATHEN. Isles of Shoals, off Portsmouth, N. H., August 11, 1885. Dear Doctor: Yours of the 6th came only today. I saw the letter you wrote to Dr. Hays touching your action towards me, and at once asked the gentleman who had told me of your behavior at Chicago, to allow me to give you his name. This he declined to do. What I wrote to Dr. Roberts about you was written, Doctor, in no spirit of fault-finding, but simply as a chapter of medical history which I desired he should know. I had no grievance, for you are a free agent and entirely capable of managing you place me in the false attitude of having endeavored to defeat your reappointment at the meeting of our Committee in Chicago, and afterward furnishing to the Courier-Journal an item saying that I had you elected. Pardon me, but I must again ask you to give me the names of the several members of the committee who gave the information upon which the above statements are based. Very truly yours, D. W. Yandell, M.D. W. H. WATHEN. Appledore, N. H., August 18, 1885. Dear Doctor: My authority for one of my statements is to be found in the Courier-Journal, date not remembered, but published soon after your return from Chicago. My authority for the other I have previously. written you, declines to allow me to give his name. Very respectfully, D. W. YANDELL. Louisville, Ky., August 21, 1885. Dear Doctor: Your evasive answer to my request, in a letter to you dated August 14th, received to-day. I am sorry that your remarks about me in your letter of July 4th to Dr. Roberts were communicated to others. I suppose you know that I have a copy of that letter. Your statements concerning my action toward you at the meeting of the Committee of Arrangements in Chicago in June are false, and you will be treated as the author of the same upon your failure to give other authority. Isles of Shoals, N. H., August 30, 1885. Dear Sir: To save delay, I have this day written to you, care Professor Flint, New York, thinking you'd be in that city by the 3d proximo. Lest; however, you do not reach there, I write now to Louisville to ask in what particulars is my letter to Dr. Roberts false? Dr. Wathen. Respectfully, D. W. YANDell. Louisville, Ky., September 7, 1885. Dear Sir: Your letter of August 30th was received yesterday, upon my return from New York City. I did not receive any letter from you while in New York. I saw Professor Flint, Jr., several times, but did not see his father. Your letter to Dr. Roberts is false in the following particulars: I. In saying, that he (Wathen) was the only member of the committee who showed himself to be my enemy. 2. In saying, that he (Wathen) was the one man who strove to defeat my reappointment. The facts are 1. There was opposition to your reappoint ment. 2. I did what I could to have you reappointed. 3. Without my influence you would not have been reappointed. 4. Your reappointment was secured by my earnest appeals to the members of the committee in your behalf. Philadelphia, Pa., September 18, 1885. Dear Sir: The gentleman who told me of your behavior at Chicago was Dr. S. W. Gross. He derived his information from Dr. Minis Hays, who was in Chicago with you. Before Dr. Hays went to Chicago, I had menfriend. On his return he said to Dr. Gross that tioned, incidentally, that I believed you to be my he did not consider you my friend, that you had of the places of all the presidents of sections, proposed, or at any rate favored, the emptying and, as I was a section president, he thought that was not a friendly act. This, and more of like 5. I have positive, written evidence to prove tenor, was repeated to me by Dr. Gross. When I the above. D. W. Yandell, M.D. Respectfully, Appledore, September 10, 1885. Dear Sir: Referring to your communication of the 7th instant, it is pertinent to remark, that had you, in the beginning of this correspondence, contented yourself with denying the truth of my statements to Dr. Roberts instead of persistently asking for the authority on which those statements were made, fewer letters would have passed between us, and a much earlier understanding would have been reached. You must have known that I had authority for what I said. But Eastern men are less ready than men are with us to shoulder what may become an unpleasant responsibility. I have succeeded, however, in getting the consent of the gentleman, who was my informant as to your conduct at Chicago, to give his name, and when I meet him in Philadelphia, next week, I will furnish you with the evidence on which I based my letter to Dr. Roberts. I need hardly remark that in whatever respect that evidence is insufficient to establish the correctness of my statements, I shall at once admit its insufficiency, withdraw what I said, and apologize for the wrong done you. And I shall take pleasure in doing so. For I had much rather think a person my friend than my enemy. My chief, indeed my only, concern now, in this matter, is to show that I spoke by authority. Anything further than that is not now a question between us. I thanked you once for what you were said in the Courier-Journal to have done for me. I hope I shall never be unmindful of kindnesses done me, no matter by whom. expressed surprise at such a report, and added that you claimed to have secured me in the office, I was told that Dr. Hays knew nothing of the kind, and did not believe that you had, in any way, accomplished such a result. On the strength of this, and, as I remarked, of other things of like tenor, I wrote what I did to Dr. Roberts. Your communication of the 7th instant puts an entirely different face upon the whole matter, and had it, as I have previously written, been given in the beginning of this correspondence, the interchange of letters need have been small. I should have believed that Dr. Hays had misconstrued your acts, and misunderstood your words. He, too, would have believed the same. When I showed him the communication I have referred to, he was evidently pained that he had given currency to impressions which were, by your statement, erroneous, and led me to believe you were my enemy instead, as you claim, my active friend. I have now this to say, that with your statement before me, and after having shown it to Dr. Hays, I am satisfied that Dr. Hays was mistaken in what he told Dr. Gross, and that, therefore, I am in error in what I wrote to Dr. Roberts, and owe it to you, and to the truth, to say so. I authorize you to at once make known to Dr. Roberts the foregoing, and to ask him for me to make it known to every one to whom he has communicated the contents of my letter, that I was unwittingly led into error in reference to your action toward me at Chicago, and my statements concerning it are erroneous, and therefore gladly withdrawn, and to be hereafter as though they had not been made. Before bringing this correspondence to a close, it is due you to say that I am gratified to be able to state that I was led into error, through, I am sure, no desire on the part of either Dr. Hays or Dr. Gross to make mischief between friends. But the source of my special pleasure is to find that I did you a great injustice in allowing myself to believe you were my enemy, when you were my friend; while I remain, error. Very respectfully and truly, D. W. YANdell. Louisville, Ky., September 23, 1885. Dear Sir: By your letter of September 18th, I find that I am asked to believe that you spoke by authority, in your statements about my action toward yourself, and that you have condescended to forget my conduct, and to acknowledge that your informant may have been guilty of a misunderstanding that caused you to commit an Now this, on the surface, smacks of magnanimity, but you seem to have become oblivious to the fact that I can neither crave nor receive pardon for an offence which I have not committed. Neither can I accept such an apology any more than I can be induced to believe that ingratitude is the reward of virtue. As you have made your retraction, while using others as a subterfuge, without giving other evidence than a simple assertion, I can give your apology consideration only in the brighter light of acknowledged authority, and defend my own. conduct by the same standard. There must have been some mistake as to the authority for your statements, which is proved by the following ambiguity: In your letter to Dr. Roberts, you say, that "several members of the committee assured your friend, etc.," and now your only authority is what Dr. Hays should have told Dr. Gross. These statements, collectively, show a discrepancy, and when received in the light of the following communication, one would think that Dr. Hays would not have been guilty of double-dealing as your assertions indi cate: "W. H. Wathen, M.D. "July 20, 1885. "Dear Doctor: Yours of the 17th instant is just received. Nothing transpired in the committee, within my knowledge, to justify the statement that you had opposed Dr. Yandell's election at Chicago. Chestnut Street, September 28, 1885. Dear Sir: I feel that the language of my communication from Philadelphia, legitimately conveys no such meaning as that you have given it, and that you have misconstrued both its intent and spirit. The purpose of that letter was to give you the authority on which I had made certain statements concerning yourself, to withdraw "and leave as though never said" everything which you said was incorrect. Its spirit was friendly. I regret that you have chosen to read it in a different way. Very respectfully, D. W. YANDELL. Louisville, Ky., September 29, 1885. Dear Sir: When I received your letter this morning, I expected to find the authority for your "accusations," but I regret to say, that I feel quite keenly the disappointment, and I am compelled to reiterate the statements in my last letter, as they are made by authority, which does away with your "misconstruction" idea. Either furnish me authority for your accusations, or come down to facts and acknowledge that you yourself have been my traducer. Unless you do this it is useless to protract this correspondence. Respectfully, etc. Washington, D. C., July 8, 1885. Dear Dr. Wathen: Your note is at hand. I remember that you worked for Dr. Yandell's retention as chairman of the Section on Surgery, although there were others who thought it would have been better to have selected some of our more widely known surgical writers. Your efforts in the case were successful, and I am surprised that any one should imagine you had opposed Dr. Yandell, when the contrary was the Very truly, your friend, JOHN B. HAMILTON. Dr. W. H. Wathen, Louisville, Ky. fact. New York, July 9, 1885. Dear Doctor Wathen: I regret to learn that Dr. Yandell should have declined the appointment of chairman of the Section on Surgery of the International Medical Congress, and remember very distinctly your efforts in his behalf and for representatives from your State. I seconded In conclusion, I regret to say, that in the ab- your nomination of Dr. Yandell, and believe that he is indebted to you for his reappointment. Yours very respectfully, J. W. S. GOULEY. "Yours very truly, I. MINIS HAYS." unkind sence of acknowledged authority for your accusations, I have no further time to devote to this correspondence, and I shall bring it to a close with the unpleasant reflection that my labors on behalf of my townsman have been rewarded by ingrat itude. Respectfully, etc. Cleveland, Ohio, July 13, 1885. My Dear Doctor: In answer to your esteemed favor of yesterday, in regard to the action of the Sub Committee of Arrangements, at its recent I must express my astonishment at his action, as I have always entertained for him a very high opinion, both professionally and morally. Very truly yours, D. A. LINTHICUM. meeting in Chicago, Ills., the facts are: When | with those malcontents in Philadelphia in dewe came to the Section on Surgery, one member nouncing the action of our committee, whose pro(not yourself) objected to Dr. Yandell's retention ceedings were not made up at the time of his acas chairman of this section, as this member did tion, and of which action he must have been in not consider him sufficiently a representative total ignorance; unless, as was claimed by some man for so prominent a section, and believed of the committee, that he was not sound on the that we had other surgeons in this country so | Code. much more eminent, and whose abilities entitled them more than Dr. Yandell's to the position. It was only at your earnest personal request that this objection was withdrawn, and his name allowed to be presented to the General Committee for confirmation. I know that this member of the committee who made the objection, now feels that since Dr. Yandell has shown his cloven foot so beautifully in conjunction with the Philadelphia immaculates, that it was a great mistake to have retained him, and, that if it were to do over again, neither your entreaties nor persuasion would have kept him in the place. I do not believe any member of the Sub- or General Committee of Arrangements ever said that you personally opposed Dr. Yandell at the meetings of either committee, or at any time in or out of the committee meetings, for it is an untruth-it is a falsehood! You are at liberty to use this letter as you deem X. C. SCOTT, Helena, Ark., July 14, 1885. W. H. Wathen, M.D. Philadelphia, Pa., July 14, 1885. My Dear Doctor: I have no hesitation in saying that Dr. David Yandell, of your city, owed his appointment or reappointment directly to you. In the Sub-Committee, as well as in the General Committee, we directly understood that each member was responsible for each appointment from his State. Before the meeting of the committee I know you were personally active to secure Dr. David Yandell's reappointment. I am also quite certain that in a conversation with Dr. Yandell, I also stated how enthusiastic you were in his behalf. Yours sincerely, JNO. V. SHOEMAKER. West Randolph, Vt., July 15, 1885. My Dear Dr. Wathen: Yours of the 12th received this morning. I must express my surprise at what you report Dr. Yandell as saying. I do not know but some member of the committee made such an assertion, but very much doubt it. I am quite sure no one of the SubCommittee of Nine would say that, for I well recollect the objections of . and the pertinacity and tact you used in urging Dr. Yandell for the position. It was through you that he obtained the position, and I do not believe that any other member of the Sub-Committee could have carried his appointment, and for quite a time I thought you would fail. I feel very confident in saying that to you personally and alone Dr. Yandell owes his appointment, as I do not think but for yourself his name would have been brought before the committee in connection with the position. Would like to know if you are able to convince Dr. Y. of your interest in him. Fraternally and sincerely yours, E. F. UPHAM. Washington, D. C., July 19, 1885. Dear Doctor: Your note of the 17th is received. I have no knowledge of your having opposed Dr. Yandell. As I remember it, you spoke to me about it on the first day, expressing doubts as to whether his reëlection would be sat Austin, Texas, July 26, 1885. Dear Doctor: I was called out of our committee-room before we reached the Section on Surgery, and was not present when it was revised. If you had opposed the retention of Dr. Yandell's name as its chairman, your wishes, as the representative of Kentucky, would have caused his decapitation. As matters have turned out, I regret that you failed to do this, since Dr. Yandell has joined hands with the medical communists, in an effort to destroy the Code of the American Medical Association, and open the doors to all pathies and isms. I have no sympathy for him, and none is felt for him by the profession of Texas. With best wishes for you personally, and for the success of the Congress, Very truly, your friend, J. W. MCLAUGHLIN. I remain, ing to Washington, D. C., August 2, 1885. My Dear Doctor: Absence from home, at the seashore, will explain to you my delay in replyYour letter. I now do so to say that I well recollect what occurred touching Dr. Yandell's position on the programme. It was suggested that some more prominent man might be placed in the position which had been assigned You very promptly and emphatically objected to his being touched, alleging that your relations with him might furnish ground for charging you with such removal. to him. I dictate this note to you from a sick-bed, and hope you will, therefore, excuse brevity. Very respectfully yours, A. Y. P. GARNETT. Memphis, August 12, 1885. Wm. H. Wathen, M.D. My Dear Doctor: Your favor of the 5th instant came duly to hand. Replying, I would say, that I do not remember to have heard you mention the name of Dr. D. W. Yandell, while in Chicago or elsewhere. I am confident you did not oppose him, in any way, in my presence. Yours most cordially, F. L. SIM. Louisville, Ky., October 5, 1885. My Dear Doctor Hays: Some letters have passed between Dr. D. W. Yandell and myself, touching my conduct toward him in the committee meeting in Chicago, and since he has given you as the source of his information, I take the liberty of inclosing so much of the correspondence as relates to yourself, in order that you may have a full knowledge of what has transpired before the publication of the same. I need hardly say to you that I have, from members of the committee, abundant written proof in support of my veracity. Of course, I have no concern about Dr. Yandell's attempt to injure me here in my native State, where both of us are known, and I wish to place myself only in the proper light before professional gentlemen, in other parts of the country, where his poisonous arrows may have fallen. If you have any further statement to make, please give it your attention at the earliest possible moment. I have the honor to remain, with much esteem, Yours very truly, W. H. WATHEN. I. Minis Hays, M.D., Philadelphia. Philadelphia, October 7, 1885. instant just received, and I greatly regret that a My Dear Doctor Wathen: Yours of the 5th casual remark of mine should have unintentionally reached Dr. Yandell's ears, and have led him to put an interpretation upon your actions which it did not justify. Before I went to the Chicago meeting, Dr. Yandell, in conversation with Dr. Gross and me, told us that just before he left home, and while yet confined to his bed, he had had a “ friendly visit" from you, during which you had freely discussed what had been done at New Orleans, in reference to the Congress, and the then existing outlook, and that you could be relied upon as not being in sympathy with the radical leaders on the committee. Now, from the part that you took at Chicago, I caine to the conclusion that |