FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES[1]So far as the writer is aware, there exists, in this or any other language, no paper upon the subject at all commensurate with its importance. The chapters devoted to it in medical text-books, though some of them admirable so far as they go, especially that of Beck, are defective and often erroneous; while but little information of any value can be found elsewhere. In the French periodicals have appeared articles on special points hereafter referred to; in Great Britain able arguments regarding the commencement of fœtal life have been made by Radford, (1848;) and in this country, with remarks on the frequency of the crime, by Hodge, of Philadelphia, (1839 and 1854,) and by the present Professor of Obstetrics in Harvard University, (1855.) To the latter, his father, and to the journalists (Drs. Morland and Minot, of Boston,) by whom the effort then made was so warmly and eloquently seconded, the writer acknowledges his indebtedness for the thought of the present undertaking.[2]As quoted by Hodge. Introductory Lecture, p. 15.[3]Hippocrates states that this is a fact, and that he had found the difference of a whole month, which he attributes to the “greater strength” of the male.—(On the Nature of the Child, Sect. 11.) I am unaware that this point has been investigated by any modern writer.[4]“These sounds may sometimes be distinguished several weeks before the mother becomes conscious of the motions of the child.”—Nægele;Treatise on Obstetric Auscultation, p. 50.[5]Memoire sur la cause des Présentations de la Tête, &c.—Mém. de l’Acad. Roy. de Méd.tome ii.[6]A. Paré; English Trans., p. 899.Hugh Chamberlen’sTrans. of Mauriceau onDiseases of Women with Child, p. 147, Note.Ennemoser; Historisch-physiologische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung und das Wesen der menschlichen Seele; Bonn, 1824.Cabanis; Rapports du Physique et du moral de l’Homme, tome ii. p. 431.[7]Ed.Med. and Surg. Journ., Jan. 1855, p. 50.[8]Simpson,Obstetric Works, vol. ii. p. 88.[9]Many of the statistics now presented we have also embodied in a paper upon the decrease of the rate of increase of population now obtaining in Europe and America, read before the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, December 14th, 1858, as a contribution to the Science of Political Economy.[10]Moreau De Jonnés, Eléments de Statistique, 1856, p. 202.[11]Journal des Economistes, March and May, 1847.[12]Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1857, p. 342. Med. Times and Gazette, May, 1857, p. 462.[13]Lehrbuch der Politischen Oekonomie.[14]Sur l’Homme et la Developpement de ses Facultés, tome i. ch. 7.[15]Journal des Economistes, May, 1847.[16]Mill, Principles of Political Economy, i. p. 343.[17]Husson, Les Consummations de Paris, 1856.[18]Compiled fromDe Jonnés.[19]10,925 births; 646 still-births.[20]Births, 52,538; still-births, 2624.[21]Compiled fromQuetelet, Theory of Probabilities, p. 152; 406,073 living births; 16,767 still-births.[22]Births, 7,593,017; still-births, 257,068. 1839-41, 1 to 26;Elliott, Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, July, 1856.[23]2080 still-births.[24]2349 still-births.[25]De Jonnés, loc. cit., p. 239.[26]Quetelet, loc. cit., p. 152.[27]Register of the Morgue.[28]De Jonnés, loc. cit., p. 193.[29]Report of City Inspector of New York for 1849.[30]City Inspector’s Report for 1856.[31]Ibid.[32]Compiled fromQuetelet, loc. cit., p. 152.[33]Compiled from City Inspector’s Report for 1855.[34]Ibid. for 1856.[35]Clay, Obstetric Cyclopedia, p. 21.[36]Separate records of the premature births in New York were not made before this period. They were not rendered in 1842; I have therefore omitted in the calculation the still-births of the same year. For a series of the official reports, I am indebted to the present City Inspector, Mr. Geo. W. Morton.[37]Report of 1849.[38]Loc. cit., p. 195.[39]Loc. cit., i. p. 344.[40]Ibid., p. 343.[41]Med. Times and Gazette, June 1856, p. 611.[42]Les Consummations de Paris.[43]Loc. cit.[44]De Jonnés, loc. cit., p. 194.[45]Ibid., p. 195.[46]Journal des Economistes, 1847.[47]Mill, loc. cit., i. p. 336. The italics are my own. I shall hereafter refer back to this passage.[48]Ibid., i. p. 417.[49]Essay on Population.[50]Mill, loc. cit., i. p. 417.[51]Travels of Anacharsis, v. p. 270.[52]Ibid., iv. p. 342.[53]Satires, vi., v. 592.[54]Amor., lib. 2.; Heroïdes, epist. 2.[55]Reeve’s Apologies.[56]Blaquiere, Letters from the Med., pp. 90, 184;Slade, Records of Travels, ii. p. 162.[57]Barrow, Travels in China, p. 113;De Pauw, Philosoph. Dissert;Medhurst, China, &c., p. 45;Smith, Exploratory Visit, &c., i. p. 53.[58]Golownin, Memoirs of a Captivity, iii. p. 222.[59]Moor, Hindoo Infanticide, p. 63;Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asia, p. 49;Ward, View of the History, &c., of the Hindoos, p. 393.[60]For a long list of authorities on these points, seeBeck, ii. p. 389, et seq.[61]Belgium.[62]Local exceptions to this general rule will of course be found to exist, as is always the case with laws based on mere statistics, especially, as here, where reports to the registry are liable, for evident reasons, to be withheld. Thus it appears from Dr. Jewell’s collections (this Journal, March, 1857, p. 277,) that the proportion of still-births in Philadelphia was, in 1856, only 1 in 913 to the total population, and 1 in 20.1 to the general mortality, against which evidence must be placed that which we subsequently furnish from Prof. Hodge.[63]MSS. Letter from City Registrar, March 26, 1857.[64]Chickering, Comparative View of the Population of Boston, 1850. City Document, No. 60, p. 44.[65]Twelfth Registration Report to the Legislature of Massachusetts, 1853, p. 116. The truth of this statement has been corroborated by Dr. Curtis, in his Report on the Census of Boston in 1855. City Document, 1856, p. 22. Also, Fifteenth State Registration Report, 1856, p. 179.[66]“Had the rate of the annual increase of the numbers living under the age of five (3.13 per cent.) resulted entirely from the increase of births in a permanent population, the number of births of 1855 (in the districts where the ratio of the registered deaths to the population was greater than one to sixty-three, 166 of the 331 towns) would have been 24,457, instead of 23,481, the number registered. On the other hand, had the increase resulted wholly from migration, (the annual number of births in the permanent population being constant,) the number of births would have been only 22,956. The number of births registered is somewhat nearer the latter than the former of these two values.“Assuming the correctness of the births, deaths, and population, in the selected districts, it appears that 35 per cent. of the increase of the population under the age of five was due to births in the permanent portion of the population, and 65 per cent. due to the movement of the migratory portion; also, that 38 per cent. of the increase of population at all ages was due to excess of births over deaths, leaving 62 per cent. to be accounted for by excess of immigration over emigration.”—Elliott, The Laws of Human Mortality in Massachusetts; Proceedings of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science, Montreal, 1857, p. 57.[67]Chickering, loc. cit., p. 49.[68]The tables now presented, we have compiled from the fifteen published Registration Reports of the State of Massachusetts. Advance sheets of the Sixteenth Report have kindly been furnished me while this article is passing through the press, by the compiler, Dr. Josiah Curtis, of Boston. The premature births for 1856 and 1857 are not given in the reports for those years, so that I cannot extend my calculations beyond 1855. Deductions from the still-births at the full time, which are alone given in the years referred to, are of course useless for the present inquiry.[69]Births, 27,664; population, 994,665.[70]Births, 32,845; population, 1,132,369.[71]Total births at full time, 32,845; living births at full time, 32,120. Fœtal deaths, 2064; still, at full time, 725; premature, 1339.[72]Total deaths, including 1462 fœtal, 19,461.[73]Total deaths, including 2064 fœtal, 21,523.[74]Births at full time, 154,245; premature, 5899.[75]Fourteenth Registration Report, 1855.[76]Fourteenth Registration Report, 1855.[77]In the above remarks we must not be misunderstood. We believe Massachusetts no worse with regard to abortion than many other portions of the country, but that its registration is conducted with greater care. From the statistics given it may easily be surmised what the amount of this crimemust be elsewhere. It is necessarily of infinitely more common occurrence than infanticide, the murder of children after birth, for proof of the frequency of which, at the present moment, in Great Britain, we refer to Dr. Burke Ryan’s Fothergillian Essay on the subject in the London Sanitary Review for last July, and to the London Lancet of corresponding date.[78]As, for instance, in the regularly progressive series of deaths and births, as compared with the population; constant, also as compared with each other:—Population of Massachusetts: by census of 1850, 994,665; 1855, 1,132,369. Deaths: 1851, 18,934; 1852, 18,482; 1853, 20,301; 1854, 21,414; 1855, 20,798. Births: 1851, 28,681; 1852, 29,802; 1853, 30,920; 1854, 31,997; 1855, 32,845.[79]Reports of Attorney-General of Massachusetts, from 1849 to 1858. State Documents.[80]Comptes Rendus Annuels de la Justice Criminelle.[81]Introductory Lecture, 1854, p. 17.[82]Report to Suffolk Dist. Med. Society, May, 1857; New York Med. Gazette, July, 1857, p. 390; N. H. Journal of Medicine, July, 1857, p. 211.[83]Loc. cit., p. 313.[84]The Law of Population, 1830.[85]Hume, Essays, vol. i. No. xi., p. 431.[86]Études sur l’Économie Politique; Nouveaux Principes d’Économie Politique.[87]Loc. cit., ii. p. 253.[88]Ibid., i. p. 451. An opinion to the same effect, italicized, has already been quoted.[89]Ibid., ii. pp. 316, 317.[90]Ibid., i. p. 452, foot-note.[91]Ibid., i. p. 447.[92]Nouveaux Principes, &c., liv. vii. ch. 5.[93]Medical Ethics, p. 79.[94]Since our last article, the report of the Committee appointed in 1858 to investigate the Health Department of the City of New York has appeared, and we find that our statements regarding the frequency of the crime in the metropolis are fully corroborated. Not merely are additional official statistics on this point given (pp. 182, 183), but valuable testimony from Drs. Griscom (pp. 25, 30), McNulty (p. 55), Francis (p. 64), and Bulkley (p. 133). Dr. Reese’s paper on Infant Mortality, republished by the Committee (pp. 90-100), from the Transactions of the American Medical Association for 1857, also contains incidental reference to the frequency of abortion, and for its direct and earnest dealing with the subject deserves unqualified commendation.In this connection we would call attention to the evidence of the extent of the crime in Boston, afforded since our own remarks upon that point were in type, by Dr. Walter Channing. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March 17, 1859.)[95]Annales d’Hygiène Publique, 1856, p. 122.[96]Les Consummations, etc.[97]Comptes Rendus Annuels, etc.[98]Mayer, Des Rapports Conjugaux, considérés sous le triple point de vue de la population, de la santé et de la morale publique. Paris, 1857.[99]Cangiamila, Embryologia Sacra, p. 15.[100]In verification of this statement I am enabled to quote from the last authorized edition of the Canon Laws of the Church of Rome. “Omnes, qui abortûs seu fœtûs immaturi, tam animati quam inanimati, formati vel informis, ejectionem procuraverint, pœnas propositas et inflictas tam divino quam humano jure, ac tam per canonicas sanctiones et apostolicas constitutiones quam civilia jura adversus veros homicidas incurrere, hâc nostrâ perpetuo valiturâ constitutione statuimus et ordinamus.”Reiffenstuell, Jus Canonicum Universum, tome iii. Paris, 1854.[101]Decreta Synodi plenariæ Episcoporum Hiberniæ, apud Thurles habitæ anno 1850. Art. de Baptismo, p. 20.[102]Dublin Review, April, 1858, p. 100.[103]Deventer, 1734, p. 366;Sterne, Tristram Shandy, p. 54; Med. Times and Gazette, Aug., 1858, p. 196. Though the fact of this decision has been doubted, it is nevertheless strictly true. Through the kindness of Bishop Fitzpatrick I have been favored with a copy ofBarry’s Medico-Christian Embryology, as presenting upon this point the authorized and generally received doctrine of the Catholic Church. I quote the following from the chapter “On Baptism in Impracticable and Difficult Labors:”“In case of impacted head and at all times that one is obliged to apply the forceps, whether at one of the straits or in the pelvic excavation, it becomes necessary to baptize the child on the part which presents at the uterine orifice after the rupture of the bag containing the waters.“In order to baptize the child, a syringe charged with natural water may be used. If this be not at hand, a person may use a sponge, or a linen or cotton rag, wetted with water, which is to be carried to the child by the fingers, a pair of forceps, or any other suitable contrivance, and then squeezed or pressed on the surface of the part presenting.” (Loc. cit., p. 45.)“Any person, whether man, woman or child, may baptize an infant when in danger of death.” (Ibid., p. 76.)If the facts now stated should be generally known and acted upon by the profession, hundreds of lives, infant and maternal, would annually be saved.[104]MS. Letter, dated Nov. 14th, 1858.[105]It is not of course intended to imply that Protestantism, as such, in any way encourages, or indeed permits, the practice of inducing abortion; its tenets are uncompromisingly hostile to all crime. So great, however, is the popular ignorance regarding this offence, that an abstract morality is here comparatively powerless; and there can be no doubt that the Romish ordinance, flanked on the one hand by the confessional, and by denouncement and excommunication on the other, has saved to the world thousands of infant lives.[106]Passot, Des dangers de l’avortement provoqué dans un but criminel; Gazette Méd. de Lyon, 1853.[107]Ann. d’Hygiène, 1856, p. 147.[108]DuboisandDevergie, ibid., tome xix. p. 425; tome xxxix. p. 157.[109]Ibid.[110]Review ofMontgomery’s Signs of Pregnancy; The North American Medico-Chirurgical Review, March, 1857, p. 249.[111]Principles of Midwifery, p. 547.[112]Baudelocque, tome i. p. 115;Fodere, ii. p. 17;Marc, Dict. de Méd., i. p. 228;Montgomery, Signs of Pregnancy, p. 578;Devergie, Méd. Légale, i. p. 244.[113]Ryan, p. 267;Tardieu, loc. cit.[114]Clarke, Trans. of Soc. for Impr. of Med.-Chir. Knowledge, iii. p. 290;Baudelocque, i. p. 123, note;Leroux, Traité des Pertes, Obs. xiii. p. 25;Montgomery, loc. cit., p. 618.[115]Gardner, of New York, note toTyler Smith’s Lectures on Obstetrics, p. 203.[116]Am. Journ. of the Med. Sciences, April, 1859. In the instance referred to, the cervix had been deeply and extensively lacerated, forceps having been used in four previous labors; while depressions existing between the old cicatrices and half filled and ragged with clots, were decidedly suggestive of punctured wounds. The true nature of the case was rendered evident by its past history, and corroborated by the fact that the patient was a Catholic; the latter being a point to which I am inclined to attach much importance, for reasons already given.[117]Practical Treatise, p. 275.[118]Ryan, Med. Jurisprudence, p. 282.[119]Roscoe, Law of Evidence, 242.[120]Archbold, Crim. Pleading, 491; 1Hale, 455.[121]Davis, Crim. Justice, 482.[122]Davis, Crim. Justice, 483.[123]Reg.v.Haynes; Reg.v.Goodall; Rexv.Phillips.[124]Med. Times and Gazette, Jan., 1856, p. 611.[125]“This operation must not on any account be undertaken without the sanction, and in the presence, of another practitioner.”—Clay, Hand-book of Obstetric Surgery, p. 13.[126]1Gabbett, Cr. Law, 523.[127]Loc. cit.[128]ChevalierandDevergie, Ann. d’Hyg., 1856, p. 157.[129]Med. Jurisp.; Griffith’s ed., p. 472, Hartshorne’s ed., p. 378.[130]Tardieu, loc. cit., 1856, p. 124.[131]A Woman’s Thoughts about Women. By the author of “John Halifax, Gentleman.” 1858, p. 14.[132]Loc. cit.[133]Ibid.[134]Mass. Laws of 1847, chap. 83.[135]“By imprisonment in the State prison, house of correction, or common jail, not more than three years, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.”[136]Opera omnia. Ed. 1655, i., p. 643.[137]Jörgof Leipsic, who speaks of the human fœtus as “only a higher species of intestinal worm, not endowed with a human soul, nor entitled to human attributes.”[138]Simpson, Obst. Works, i. pp. 352, 404.[139]Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, January, 1857, p. 462.[140]The immorality of craniotomy, where delivery can be effected by any other method, is gradually becoming acknowledged in Great Britain. A late discussion on this subject, at the Obstetric Society of London, is reported in the Medical Times and Gazette for February, 1859.[141]Clay, Obstetric Surgery, p. 68.[142]SinclairandJohnston, Practical Midwifery, 1858. 130 cases of craniotomy in 13,748 labors.[143]Clay, Loc. cit., p. 69.[144]The subject of justifiable craniotomy has of late been ably though controversially discussed by an anonymous writer (Dublin Review, April and October, 1858,) and Dr. Churchill (Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, August and November, of the same year). Care must be taken, lest in assenting to the decided and imperative necessity of the operation in certain cases, and by a natural professional sympathy, too great frequency is not allowed to this most horrible and appalling of all the operations to which as physicians we can ever be called.[145]Review ofClay’s Obstetric Surgery; Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, November, 1856, p. 283.[146]Theory and Practice of Midwifery, p. 348.[147]De jure vitæ et necis quod competit medico in partu. Heidelberg, 1826.[148]“Where one only can by any possibility be preserved, the female herself may use her right of self-preservation and choose whether her own life or that of her child shall fall a sacrifice.”Guy, Principles of Forensic Medicine, p. 145.[149]Guy’s Hospital Reports, 1856, p. 12.[150]Dublin Quarterly Journ. of Med. Science, August, 1858, p. 10.[151]Radford, British Record of Obst. Medicine, 1848, p. 84.[152]The rules of the Catholic Church upon this point have been already referred to. Suffice it to say, further, that while they enjoin the Cæsarean and vaginal sections, in preference to craniotomy and in cases of extra-uterine fœtation, yet turning, the use of forceps, and the induction of premature labor, where such are indicated, are distinctly allowed by them.Barry, Medico-Christian Embryology, pp. 41, 44, 45, 60.[153]Guy’s Hosp. Reports, 1856, p. 4.[154]For a full discussion of the respective merits of the several methods instanced above, seeSimpson, loc. cit., i. p. 738.I have lately contrived an instrument very similar to one not long since proposed by Spencer Wells for dilatation of the female urethra, which by a simple combination of the three principles involved, will probably prove of material service in the induction of premature labor. It may be called the uterine dilator, as it possesses many advantages over expansible tents for all cases of uterine disease where dilatation is necessary, either for diagnosis or treatment. A description of the instrument, and of its first application to obstetric practice, is published in the current number of the American Journal of the Medical Sciences.[155]Bulletin de l’Académie, xvii. p. 364.[156]British Record, etc., p. 82.[157]I have elsewhere discussed this subject; American Journal of the Medical Sciences, January, 1859.[158]Enchiridion Medicum, p. 510.[159]Question d’Embryologie Médicale, etc.; Revue de l’Amérique et de l’Ouest, 1846.[160]Joan. Riolan., Anthropographia, lib. vi. cap. vii. p. 589.[161]Churchill, Dublin Quarterly Journ. of Med. Science, August, 1858, p. 22.[162]A case in point has been reported by the writer; Amer. Journ. of the Med. Sciences, April, 1859.[163]Reports to the Suffolk Dist. Med. Society of Massachusetts, 1857, and to the American Medical Association, 1859.[164]“It would in my opinion,” says Ramsbotham, referring to the nature of fœtal existence, “be much better not to endeavor to explain the secrets of nature, so deeply hidden.”—(Obst. Medicine and Surgery, p. 309.) This belief seems still, in practice, very widely entertained.[165]Clay, Obstetric Retrospect, March, 1848, p. 44.[166]Medical Communications of the Mass. Med. Soc., 1858, p. 77.The writer having been a member of this committee, here enters, as he has already done by letter to the councillors of the Society, his earnest protest against the plainly erroneous opinion avowed in that report, which was presented and accepted during his absence from the State.By the laws of Massachusetts, the offence is considered as mainly against the person of the mother. In case of her death, already sufficiently provided for at common law, convictions can be effected, with great difficulty, under the statute,—as has twice occurred the present year, in the cases of Jackson and Brown; but hardly otherwise.[167]In this connection honorable mention is due Drs.TatumandJoynes, of Virginia, for their papers on “The Attributes of the Impregnated Germ,” and “Some of the Legal Relations of the Fœtus in Utero” (Virginia Medical Journal, 1856.) Through the agency of the latter of these gentlemen, an important modification has been made in the law of the State; as has also been effected in Wisconsin, by Dr.Brisbane.[168]For valuable information in this connection, I am indebted to many friends, more particularly to Drs.Thayer, of New Hampshire,Phelps, of Vermont,Chas. Hooker, of Connecticut,Blatchford, of New York,Wood, of Pennsylvania,Thompson, of Delaware,Wroth, of Maryland,Brainard, of Illinois,Cameron, of Indiana,Leland, of Michigan,Le Boutillier, of Minnesota,Brisbane, of Wisconsin,Pope, of Missouri,Hoyt, of Tennessee,HaxallandJoynes, of Virginia,Semmes, of District of Columbia,Dickson, of North Carolina,Lopez, of Alabama,Barton, of Louisiana, (now of South Carolina,) and to my relatives,WoodburyandBellamy Storer, Esqrs., of Maine and Ohio, andJames M. Keith, Esq., of Boston, late District-Attorney for Norfolk and Plymouth Counties. In every instance, however, verification of the statutes has been made from copies in the State Library of Massachusetts.[169]Davis, Criminal Justice, p. 482.[170]1 Commentaries, 129.[171]Ibid.[172]43 George III., c. 58.[173]9 Geo. IV., c. 31; 10 Geo. IV., c. 34.[174]7 William IV.; 1 Vict., c. 85.[175]To this list may also be added the Territory of Washington.[176]The Territory of Kansas belongs to the above group.[177]Compiled Statutes of Connecticut, 1854, p. 307.[178]Revised Code of Mississippi, 1857, chap. 64, p. 601.[179]Digest of Statutes of Arkansas, 1848, chap. 51, p. 325.[180]Revised Statutes of Minnesota, 1851, chap. 100, p. 493.[181]Statutes of Oregon, 1855, chap. 3, p. 310.[182]Revised Statutes of Maine, 1857, chap. 124, p. 685.[183]The above should evidently read “the first two sections,” to be possible.[184]Compiled Statutes of New Hampshire, 1853, chap. 227, p. 544.[185]Revised Statutes of New York, 1852, ii. pp. 847, 876. The last section of this statute does not require proof of pregnancy.[186]Revised Statutes of Ohio, 1854, chap. 162, p. 296.[187]Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1857, vol. ii. chap. 180, p. 1509. The statute of the Territory ofWashingtonis very similar to those above.“Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than twenty years, nor less than one year.“Every person who shall administer to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be pregnant, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years, nor less than one year, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than twelve months, nor less than one month, and be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.” Statutes of the Territory of Washington, 1855, p. 81.[188]Compiled Statutes of Vermont, 1850, chap. 108, p. 560.[189]Supplement to the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, 1849, p. 322.[190]Statutes of Illinois, 1858, vol. i. p. 381.[191]Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1858, chap. 169, sect. 58. It will be noticed that the second section of the above statute differs from the first, in not requiring the proof of pregnancy.[192]Code of Virginia, 1849, chap. 191, p. 724.[193]Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1856, i. chap. 50, p. 567.[194]Code of Alabama, 1852, sect. 3230, p. 582.[195]Revised Statutes of Louisiana, 1856, p. 138. By its wording, this statute might be forced into the next division.[196]I insert this clause not merely for its relation to the points we are now considering, but for its important bearing on the broad question of infanticide during labor; concerning which it stands in bold and direct antagonism to all the rulings of the common law in this country and abroad. In other respects also, though not faultless, the Texas statute is rationally and admirably drawn.[197]Penal Code of Texas, 1857, p. 103.[198]Digest of Laws of California, 1857, art. 1905, p. 334. The statute of the Territory ofKansas, similar to the above, is as follows:—“Every physician or other person who shall willfully administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or means whatsoever, with intent thereby to procure abortion, or the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, or shall have been advised by a physician to be necessary for that purpose, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Statutes of Kansas, 1855, chap. 48, p. 243.[199]We have already commented upon the phraseology of the Louisiana statute. The latitude of its first clause is shown by the context to have been unintentional, and therefore hardly justifies a change in its classification. The second section of the Statute of Washington Territory, however, is closely analogous to that now given; while the final sections of the statutes both of New York and Wisconsin, which make it penal for a woman voluntarily to effect or submit to the unjustifiable induction of abortion, are equally silent regarding proof of the existence of pregnancy.[200]Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1852, p. 437.[201]Rexvs.Phillips, 3Campbell, 77;Russell, Crim. Law, 553-4; 1Gabbett, Crim. Law, 522; 1Bishop, Crim. Law, 386.[202]Statevs.Cooper, 2Zabriskie, 52, 57; Rexvs.Russell, 1Moody, 356, 360.[203]Reginavs.Wycherley, 8CarringtonandPayne, 265.[204]The Peoplevs.Jackson, 3Hill, N. Y. Reports, 92;Wharton, Criminal Law, 98.[205]Davis, Crim. Justice, 484.[206]Wharton, Amer. Crim. Law, 424.[207]Wharton, Amer. Crim. Law, 75.[208]The Statevs.Vawter, 7Blackford, 592.[209]1Gabbett, Crim. Law, 523;Archbold, P. A., lxx, 2.[210]Roscoe, L. E., 242; Eng. Com. L. Rep., xxv. 453; Rexvs.Coe, 6Car. & P., 403; Vaughan, 13.[211]1Bishop, Crim. Law, 527.[212]In Massachusetts, though the statute is silent on these points, it is asserted that whenever a potion is given, or other means are used, by “a surgeon,” for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, the case is free of malice, and has a lawful justification.Davis, Crim. Justice, 282; Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners, 1844, Causing Abortion, I., notea.[213]After a little reflection, it will be seen that this word is not so open to objection as might at first be supposed.[214]1Russell, Crimes, 671; 1Vesey, 86; 3Coke, Inst., 50; 1Hawkins, C. B., s. 16; 1Hale, 434; 1East, P. C., 90; 3Chitty, Crim. Law, 798;Wharton, Crim. Law, 537.[215]Davis, Crim. Justice, 486.[216]Archbold, Crim. Pleading, 490.[217]Reginavs.Trilloe, 2Moody, C. C., 260, 413.[218]The Statevs.Cooper, 2Zabriskie, 52;Hanes, U. S. Digest, 5.[219]The Commonwealthvs.Parker, 9Metcalf, 263; The Commonwealthvs.Bangs, 9 Mass., 387; The Statevs.Cooper, 2Zabriskie, 57;Hanes, U. S. Digest, 5; Smithvs.State, 33Maine, (3Red.) 48.[220]Bishop, Crim. Law, 386; Millsvs.The Commonw., 1Harris, Pa., 631, 633.[221]Wharton, Crim. Law of the U. S., 537.[222]1Russell, Crimes, 661; 1Vesey, 86; 3Coke, Inst., 50; 1Hawkins, c. 13, s. 16;Bracton, 1. 3, c. 21.[223]Bac.Ab., tit. Infants.[224]2Vernon, 710.[225]Doevs.Clark, 2 H. Bl., 399; 2Vesey, jr., 673; Thellussonvs.Woodford, 4Vesey, 340; Swiftvs.Duffield, 6Serg. & Rawle, 38.[226]Fearne, 429.[227]2Vernon, 710; The Commonwealthvs.Demain, 6 Penn. Law Journ., 29;Brightly, 441.[228]1Hale, 90; The Commonw.vs.Chauncey, 1Ashmead, 227; Smithvs.State, 33Maine, (3Red.) 48.[229]Ibid.;Hanes, U. S. Digest, 5.[230]Wharton, Law of Homicide, 44.[231]The Commonw.vs.Parker, 9Metcalf, 263, 265;Davis, Crim. Justice, 281.[232]1Blackstone, 129; Rexvs.Senior, 1Moody, C. C., 346; 3 Inst., 50;Wharton, C. L., 537; Ibid., Law of Homicide, 93.[233]Rexvs.West, 2Carr. & Kir., 784; 1Bishop, C. L., 255;Wharton, Law of Homicide, 93.[234]Rexvs.Scudder, 1Moody, 216, 3Car. & P., 605, overruling Rexvs.Phillips, 3Campbell, 73;Russell, Cr., 763, note.[235]If made without her consent?[236]Reginavs.Goodchild, 2Car. & Kir., 293; Rexvs.Goodhall, 1Den.C. C., 187; 3Campbell, 76.[237]1Bishop, Crim. Law, 518.[238]1Bishop, Crim. Law, 385.[239]Wharton, Crim. Law, 541.[240]1Harris, Pa., 631, 633.[241]Lee, Note to Guy’s Principles of Forensic Medicine, p. 134.[242]Beccaria, Crimes and Punishments, 104.[243]“An efficient, and practical remedy for the prevention of this crime would be a law requiring the causes of death to be certified by the physician in attendance, or where there has been no physician, by one called in for the purpose. In this way the cause of death, both in infants and mothers, could be traced to attempts to procure abortion. In three cases which occurred in Boston, in 1855, the death was reported by friends to be owing to natural causes, and in each it was subsequently ascertained that the patient died in consequence of injuries received in procuring abortion. It is probable that such cases are by no means rare; and if the cause of death were known, an immediate investigation might lead to the detection of the guilty party.” (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Dec., 1857, p. 365.)[244]Register of the Morgue.[245]From 1846 to 1850, 188 cases of criminal abortion were discovered in Paris, but for want of proof, only 22 of them were sent to trial. (Comptes Rendus Ann. de la Justice Criminelle.)[246]Report on the Medico-legal duties of Coroner. 1857.[247]Radford, British Record of Obstetric Medicine, vol. i. p. 55.[248]Wharton, Criminal Law, 540.[249]Smithvs.The State, 33Maine, (3Red.) 48.[250]Rexvs.Phillips; Reginavs.Goodall; Reg.vs.Haynes, etc.[251]Taylor, Med. Jurisprudence, p. 386.[252]Percival, Medical Ethics, p. 84.[253]Ibid., p. 85.[254]Loc. cit., article 317.[255]Report to Suffolk District Med. Society, May, 1857, p. 12.[256]In this connection, I cannot too strongly deprecate a practice that has lately been proposed, the detection, namely, of the early existence of pregnancy by the administration of ergot. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, April, 1859, p. 197.) The use of ergot for this purpose, in however small a dose, would seem utterly unjustifiable.[257]Fifteenth Massachusetts Registration Report, 1857, p. 199.[258]Quetelet, Theory of Probabilities, p. 234.[259]New York Med. Gazette, Editorial; London Medical Times and Gazette, 1850, p. 487.[260]Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Editorial, 1855, p. 411.[261]Dean, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 139.[262]Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Editorial, Dec. 13, 1855.[263]American Medical Gazette, Editorial, July, 1857, p. 390.[264]Ibid., April 1859, p. 289.[265]Maine Med. and Surg. Reporter, Editorial, June, 1858, p. 39.[266]Deville, Researches on the proportion of still-born children compared with the mortality of the City of Paris during the thirteen years, 1846-58. Memoirs of the French Academy, 1859.[267]New Hampshire Journal of Medicine, Editorial, July, 1857, p. 216.[268]London Lancet, Editorial, July, 1858, p. 66.[269]Tatum, Virginia Med. Journal, June, 1856, p. 457.[270]Loc. cit., p. 19.[271]The Councillors of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Proceedings of the Society, 1858, p. 77.[272]Phillips, On Evidence, i. p. 135;Ryan, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 193;Storer, Sen., Introductory Address, 1855, p. 10;Simpson, Physicians and Physic, p. 31.[273]Proceedings of the Society, 1858.[274]Man Transformed. Oxford, 1653.[275]“Resolved, That while physicians have long been united in condemning the procuring of abortion, at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child, it has become the duty of this Association, in view of the prevalence and increasing frequency of the crime, publicly to enter an earnest and solemn protest against such unwarrantable destruction of human life.“Resolved, That in pursuance of the grand and noble calling we profess,—the saving of human life,—and of the sacred responsibilities thereby devolving upon us, the Association present this subject to the attention of the several legislative assemblies of the Union, with the prayer that the laws by which the crime of abortion is attempted to be controlled may be revised, and that such other action may be taken in the premises as they in their wisdom may deem necessary.“Resolved, That the Association request the zealous co-operation of the various State medical societies in pressing this subject upon the legislatures of their respective States, and that the president and secretaries of the Association are hereby authorized to carry out, by memorial, these resolutions.”—Transactions of the Am. Med. Association, 1859, vol. xii. p. 75.

FOOTNOTES

[1]So far as the writer is aware, there exists, in this or any other language, no paper upon the subject at all commensurate with its importance. The chapters devoted to it in medical text-books, though some of them admirable so far as they go, especially that of Beck, are defective and often erroneous; while but little information of any value can be found elsewhere. In the French periodicals have appeared articles on special points hereafter referred to; in Great Britain able arguments regarding the commencement of fœtal life have been made by Radford, (1848;) and in this country, with remarks on the frequency of the crime, by Hodge, of Philadelphia, (1839 and 1854,) and by the present Professor of Obstetrics in Harvard University, (1855.) To the latter, his father, and to the journalists (Drs. Morland and Minot, of Boston,) by whom the effort then made was so warmly and eloquently seconded, the writer acknowledges his indebtedness for the thought of the present undertaking.

[2]As quoted by Hodge. Introductory Lecture, p. 15.

[3]Hippocrates states that this is a fact, and that he had found the difference of a whole month, which he attributes to the “greater strength” of the male.—(On the Nature of the Child, Sect. 11.) I am unaware that this point has been investigated by any modern writer.

[4]“These sounds may sometimes be distinguished several weeks before the mother becomes conscious of the motions of the child.”—Nægele;Treatise on Obstetric Auscultation, p. 50.

[5]Memoire sur la cause des Présentations de la Tête, &c.—Mém. de l’Acad. Roy. de Méd.tome ii.

[6]A. Paré; English Trans., p. 899.Hugh Chamberlen’sTrans. of Mauriceau onDiseases of Women with Child, p. 147, Note.Ennemoser; Historisch-physiologische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung und das Wesen der menschlichen Seele; Bonn, 1824.Cabanis; Rapports du Physique et du moral de l’Homme, tome ii. p. 431.

[7]Ed.Med. and Surg. Journ., Jan. 1855, p. 50.

[8]Simpson,Obstetric Works, vol. ii. p. 88.

[9]Many of the statistics now presented we have also embodied in a paper upon the decrease of the rate of increase of population now obtaining in Europe and America, read before the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, December 14th, 1858, as a contribution to the Science of Political Economy.

[10]Moreau De Jonnés, Eléments de Statistique, 1856, p. 202.

[11]Journal des Economistes, March and May, 1847.

[12]Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1857, p. 342. Med. Times and Gazette, May, 1857, p. 462.

[13]Lehrbuch der Politischen Oekonomie.

[14]Sur l’Homme et la Developpement de ses Facultés, tome i. ch. 7.

[15]Journal des Economistes, May, 1847.

[16]Mill, Principles of Political Economy, i. p. 343.

[17]Husson, Les Consummations de Paris, 1856.

[18]Compiled fromDe Jonnés.

[19]10,925 births; 646 still-births.

[20]Births, 52,538; still-births, 2624.

[21]Compiled fromQuetelet, Theory of Probabilities, p. 152; 406,073 living births; 16,767 still-births.

[22]Births, 7,593,017; still-births, 257,068. 1839-41, 1 to 26;Elliott, Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, July, 1856.

[23]2080 still-births.

[24]2349 still-births.

[25]De Jonnés, loc. cit., p. 239.

[26]Quetelet, loc. cit., p. 152.

[27]Register of the Morgue.

[28]De Jonnés, loc. cit., p. 193.

[29]Report of City Inspector of New York for 1849.

[30]City Inspector’s Report for 1856.

[31]Ibid.

[32]Compiled fromQuetelet, loc. cit., p. 152.

[33]Compiled from City Inspector’s Report for 1855.

[34]Ibid. for 1856.

[35]Clay, Obstetric Cyclopedia, p. 21.

[36]Separate records of the premature births in New York were not made before this period. They were not rendered in 1842; I have therefore omitted in the calculation the still-births of the same year. For a series of the official reports, I am indebted to the present City Inspector, Mr. Geo. W. Morton.

[37]Report of 1849.

[38]Loc. cit., p. 195.

[39]Loc. cit., i. p. 344.

[40]Ibid., p. 343.

[41]Med. Times and Gazette, June 1856, p. 611.

[42]Les Consummations de Paris.

[43]Loc. cit.

[44]De Jonnés, loc. cit., p. 194.

[45]Ibid., p. 195.

[46]Journal des Economistes, 1847.

[47]Mill, loc. cit., i. p. 336. The italics are my own. I shall hereafter refer back to this passage.

[48]Ibid., i. p. 417.

[49]Essay on Population.

[50]Mill, loc. cit., i. p. 417.

[51]Travels of Anacharsis, v. p. 270.

[52]Ibid., iv. p. 342.

[53]Satires, vi., v. 592.

[54]Amor., lib. 2.; Heroïdes, epist. 2.

[55]Reeve’s Apologies.

[56]Blaquiere, Letters from the Med., pp. 90, 184;Slade, Records of Travels, ii. p. 162.

[57]Barrow, Travels in China, p. 113;De Pauw, Philosoph. Dissert;Medhurst, China, &c., p. 45;Smith, Exploratory Visit, &c., i. p. 53.

[58]Golownin, Memoirs of a Captivity, iii. p. 222.

[59]Moor, Hindoo Infanticide, p. 63;Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asia, p. 49;Ward, View of the History, &c., of the Hindoos, p. 393.

[60]For a long list of authorities on these points, seeBeck, ii. p. 389, et seq.

[61]Belgium.

[62]Local exceptions to this general rule will of course be found to exist, as is always the case with laws based on mere statistics, especially, as here, where reports to the registry are liable, for evident reasons, to be withheld. Thus it appears from Dr. Jewell’s collections (this Journal, March, 1857, p. 277,) that the proportion of still-births in Philadelphia was, in 1856, only 1 in 913 to the total population, and 1 in 20.1 to the general mortality, against which evidence must be placed that which we subsequently furnish from Prof. Hodge.

[63]MSS. Letter from City Registrar, March 26, 1857.

[64]Chickering, Comparative View of the Population of Boston, 1850. City Document, No. 60, p. 44.

[65]Twelfth Registration Report to the Legislature of Massachusetts, 1853, p. 116. The truth of this statement has been corroborated by Dr. Curtis, in his Report on the Census of Boston in 1855. City Document, 1856, p. 22. Also, Fifteenth State Registration Report, 1856, p. 179.

[66]“Had the rate of the annual increase of the numbers living under the age of five (3.13 per cent.) resulted entirely from the increase of births in a permanent population, the number of births of 1855 (in the districts where the ratio of the registered deaths to the population was greater than one to sixty-three, 166 of the 331 towns) would have been 24,457, instead of 23,481, the number registered. On the other hand, had the increase resulted wholly from migration, (the annual number of births in the permanent population being constant,) the number of births would have been only 22,956. The number of births registered is somewhat nearer the latter than the former of these two values.“Assuming the correctness of the births, deaths, and population, in the selected districts, it appears that 35 per cent. of the increase of the population under the age of five was due to births in the permanent portion of the population, and 65 per cent. due to the movement of the migratory portion; also, that 38 per cent. of the increase of population at all ages was due to excess of births over deaths, leaving 62 per cent. to be accounted for by excess of immigration over emigration.”—Elliott, The Laws of Human Mortality in Massachusetts; Proceedings of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science, Montreal, 1857, p. 57.

“Assuming the correctness of the births, deaths, and population, in the selected districts, it appears that 35 per cent. of the increase of the population under the age of five was due to births in the permanent portion of the population, and 65 per cent. due to the movement of the migratory portion; also, that 38 per cent. of the increase of population at all ages was due to excess of births over deaths, leaving 62 per cent. to be accounted for by excess of immigration over emigration.”—Elliott, The Laws of Human Mortality in Massachusetts; Proceedings of Am. Assoc. for Adv. of Science, Montreal, 1857, p. 57.

[67]Chickering, loc. cit., p. 49.

[68]The tables now presented, we have compiled from the fifteen published Registration Reports of the State of Massachusetts. Advance sheets of the Sixteenth Report have kindly been furnished me while this article is passing through the press, by the compiler, Dr. Josiah Curtis, of Boston. The premature births for 1856 and 1857 are not given in the reports for those years, so that I cannot extend my calculations beyond 1855. Deductions from the still-births at the full time, which are alone given in the years referred to, are of course useless for the present inquiry.

[69]Births, 27,664; population, 994,665.

[70]Births, 32,845; population, 1,132,369.

[71]Total births at full time, 32,845; living births at full time, 32,120. Fœtal deaths, 2064; still, at full time, 725; premature, 1339.

[72]Total deaths, including 1462 fœtal, 19,461.

[73]Total deaths, including 2064 fœtal, 21,523.

[74]Births at full time, 154,245; premature, 5899.

[75]Fourteenth Registration Report, 1855.

[76]Fourteenth Registration Report, 1855.

[77]In the above remarks we must not be misunderstood. We believe Massachusetts no worse with regard to abortion than many other portions of the country, but that its registration is conducted with greater care. From the statistics given it may easily be surmised what the amount of this crimemust be elsewhere. It is necessarily of infinitely more common occurrence than infanticide, the murder of children after birth, for proof of the frequency of which, at the present moment, in Great Britain, we refer to Dr. Burke Ryan’s Fothergillian Essay on the subject in the London Sanitary Review for last July, and to the London Lancet of corresponding date.

[78]As, for instance, in the regularly progressive series of deaths and births, as compared with the population; constant, also as compared with each other:—Population of Massachusetts: by census of 1850, 994,665; 1855, 1,132,369. Deaths: 1851, 18,934; 1852, 18,482; 1853, 20,301; 1854, 21,414; 1855, 20,798. Births: 1851, 28,681; 1852, 29,802; 1853, 30,920; 1854, 31,997; 1855, 32,845.

[79]Reports of Attorney-General of Massachusetts, from 1849 to 1858. State Documents.

[80]Comptes Rendus Annuels de la Justice Criminelle.

[81]Introductory Lecture, 1854, p. 17.

[82]Report to Suffolk Dist. Med. Society, May, 1857; New York Med. Gazette, July, 1857, p. 390; N. H. Journal of Medicine, July, 1857, p. 211.

[83]Loc. cit., p. 313.

[84]The Law of Population, 1830.

[85]Hume, Essays, vol. i. No. xi., p. 431.

[86]Études sur l’Économie Politique; Nouveaux Principes d’Économie Politique.

[87]Loc. cit., ii. p. 253.

[88]Ibid., i. p. 451. An opinion to the same effect, italicized, has already been quoted.

[89]Ibid., ii. pp. 316, 317.

[90]Ibid., i. p. 452, foot-note.

[91]Ibid., i. p. 447.

[92]Nouveaux Principes, &c., liv. vii. ch. 5.

[93]Medical Ethics, p. 79.

[94]Since our last article, the report of the Committee appointed in 1858 to investigate the Health Department of the City of New York has appeared, and we find that our statements regarding the frequency of the crime in the metropolis are fully corroborated. Not merely are additional official statistics on this point given (pp. 182, 183), but valuable testimony from Drs. Griscom (pp. 25, 30), McNulty (p. 55), Francis (p. 64), and Bulkley (p. 133). Dr. Reese’s paper on Infant Mortality, republished by the Committee (pp. 90-100), from the Transactions of the American Medical Association for 1857, also contains incidental reference to the frequency of abortion, and for its direct and earnest dealing with the subject deserves unqualified commendation.In this connection we would call attention to the evidence of the extent of the crime in Boston, afforded since our own remarks upon that point were in type, by Dr. Walter Channing. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March 17, 1859.)

In this connection we would call attention to the evidence of the extent of the crime in Boston, afforded since our own remarks upon that point were in type, by Dr. Walter Channing. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March 17, 1859.)

[95]Annales d’Hygiène Publique, 1856, p. 122.

[96]Les Consummations, etc.

[97]Comptes Rendus Annuels, etc.

[98]Mayer, Des Rapports Conjugaux, considérés sous le triple point de vue de la population, de la santé et de la morale publique. Paris, 1857.

[99]Cangiamila, Embryologia Sacra, p. 15.

[100]In verification of this statement I am enabled to quote from the last authorized edition of the Canon Laws of the Church of Rome. “Omnes, qui abortûs seu fœtûs immaturi, tam animati quam inanimati, formati vel informis, ejectionem procuraverint, pœnas propositas et inflictas tam divino quam humano jure, ac tam per canonicas sanctiones et apostolicas constitutiones quam civilia jura adversus veros homicidas incurrere, hâc nostrâ perpetuo valiturâ constitutione statuimus et ordinamus.”Reiffenstuell, Jus Canonicum Universum, tome iii. Paris, 1854.

[101]Decreta Synodi plenariæ Episcoporum Hiberniæ, apud Thurles habitæ anno 1850. Art. de Baptismo, p. 20.

[102]Dublin Review, April, 1858, p. 100.

[103]Deventer, 1734, p. 366;Sterne, Tristram Shandy, p. 54; Med. Times and Gazette, Aug., 1858, p. 196. Though the fact of this decision has been doubted, it is nevertheless strictly true. Through the kindness of Bishop Fitzpatrick I have been favored with a copy ofBarry’s Medico-Christian Embryology, as presenting upon this point the authorized and generally received doctrine of the Catholic Church. I quote the following from the chapter “On Baptism in Impracticable and Difficult Labors:”“In case of impacted head and at all times that one is obliged to apply the forceps, whether at one of the straits or in the pelvic excavation, it becomes necessary to baptize the child on the part which presents at the uterine orifice after the rupture of the bag containing the waters.“In order to baptize the child, a syringe charged with natural water may be used. If this be not at hand, a person may use a sponge, or a linen or cotton rag, wetted with water, which is to be carried to the child by the fingers, a pair of forceps, or any other suitable contrivance, and then squeezed or pressed on the surface of the part presenting.” (Loc. cit., p. 45.)“Any person, whether man, woman or child, may baptize an infant when in danger of death.” (Ibid., p. 76.)If the facts now stated should be generally known and acted upon by the profession, hundreds of lives, infant and maternal, would annually be saved.

“In case of impacted head and at all times that one is obliged to apply the forceps, whether at one of the straits or in the pelvic excavation, it becomes necessary to baptize the child on the part which presents at the uterine orifice after the rupture of the bag containing the waters.

“In order to baptize the child, a syringe charged with natural water may be used. If this be not at hand, a person may use a sponge, or a linen or cotton rag, wetted with water, which is to be carried to the child by the fingers, a pair of forceps, or any other suitable contrivance, and then squeezed or pressed on the surface of the part presenting.” (Loc. cit., p. 45.)

“Any person, whether man, woman or child, may baptize an infant when in danger of death.” (Ibid., p. 76.)

If the facts now stated should be generally known and acted upon by the profession, hundreds of lives, infant and maternal, would annually be saved.

[104]MS. Letter, dated Nov. 14th, 1858.

[105]It is not of course intended to imply that Protestantism, as such, in any way encourages, or indeed permits, the practice of inducing abortion; its tenets are uncompromisingly hostile to all crime. So great, however, is the popular ignorance regarding this offence, that an abstract morality is here comparatively powerless; and there can be no doubt that the Romish ordinance, flanked on the one hand by the confessional, and by denouncement and excommunication on the other, has saved to the world thousands of infant lives.

[106]Passot, Des dangers de l’avortement provoqué dans un but criminel; Gazette Méd. de Lyon, 1853.

[107]Ann. d’Hygiène, 1856, p. 147.

[108]DuboisandDevergie, ibid., tome xix. p. 425; tome xxxix. p. 157.

[109]Ibid.

[110]Review ofMontgomery’s Signs of Pregnancy; The North American Medico-Chirurgical Review, March, 1857, p. 249.

[111]Principles of Midwifery, p. 547.

[112]Baudelocque, tome i. p. 115;Fodere, ii. p. 17;Marc, Dict. de Méd., i. p. 228;Montgomery, Signs of Pregnancy, p. 578;Devergie, Méd. Légale, i. p. 244.

[113]Ryan, p. 267;Tardieu, loc. cit.

[114]Clarke, Trans. of Soc. for Impr. of Med.-Chir. Knowledge, iii. p. 290;Baudelocque, i. p. 123, note;Leroux, Traité des Pertes, Obs. xiii. p. 25;Montgomery, loc. cit., p. 618.

[115]Gardner, of New York, note toTyler Smith’s Lectures on Obstetrics, p. 203.

[116]Am. Journ. of the Med. Sciences, April, 1859. In the instance referred to, the cervix had been deeply and extensively lacerated, forceps having been used in four previous labors; while depressions existing between the old cicatrices and half filled and ragged with clots, were decidedly suggestive of punctured wounds. The true nature of the case was rendered evident by its past history, and corroborated by the fact that the patient was a Catholic; the latter being a point to which I am inclined to attach much importance, for reasons already given.

[117]Practical Treatise, p. 275.

[118]Ryan, Med. Jurisprudence, p. 282.

[119]Roscoe, Law of Evidence, 242.

[120]Archbold, Crim. Pleading, 491; 1Hale, 455.

[121]Davis, Crim. Justice, 482.

[122]Davis, Crim. Justice, 483.

[123]Reg.v.Haynes; Reg.v.Goodall; Rexv.Phillips.

[124]Med. Times and Gazette, Jan., 1856, p. 611.

[125]“This operation must not on any account be undertaken without the sanction, and in the presence, of another practitioner.”—Clay, Hand-book of Obstetric Surgery, p. 13.

[126]1Gabbett, Cr. Law, 523.

[127]Loc. cit.

[128]ChevalierandDevergie, Ann. d’Hyg., 1856, p. 157.

[129]Med. Jurisp.; Griffith’s ed., p. 472, Hartshorne’s ed., p. 378.

[130]Tardieu, loc. cit., 1856, p. 124.

[131]A Woman’s Thoughts about Women. By the author of “John Halifax, Gentleman.” 1858, p. 14.

[132]Loc. cit.

[133]Ibid.

[134]Mass. Laws of 1847, chap. 83.

[135]“By imprisonment in the State prison, house of correction, or common jail, not more than three years, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.”

[136]Opera omnia. Ed. 1655, i., p. 643.

[137]Jörgof Leipsic, who speaks of the human fœtus as “only a higher species of intestinal worm, not endowed with a human soul, nor entitled to human attributes.”

[138]Simpson, Obst. Works, i. pp. 352, 404.

[139]Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, January, 1857, p. 462.

[140]The immorality of craniotomy, where delivery can be effected by any other method, is gradually becoming acknowledged in Great Britain. A late discussion on this subject, at the Obstetric Society of London, is reported in the Medical Times and Gazette for February, 1859.

[141]Clay, Obstetric Surgery, p. 68.

[142]SinclairandJohnston, Practical Midwifery, 1858. 130 cases of craniotomy in 13,748 labors.

[143]Clay, Loc. cit., p. 69.

[144]The subject of justifiable craniotomy has of late been ably though controversially discussed by an anonymous writer (Dublin Review, April and October, 1858,) and Dr. Churchill (Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, August and November, of the same year). Care must be taken, lest in assenting to the decided and imperative necessity of the operation in certain cases, and by a natural professional sympathy, too great frequency is not allowed to this most horrible and appalling of all the operations to which as physicians we can ever be called.

[145]Review ofClay’s Obstetric Surgery; Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, November, 1856, p. 283.

[146]Theory and Practice of Midwifery, p. 348.

[147]De jure vitæ et necis quod competit medico in partu. Heidelberg, 1826.

[148]“Where one only can by any possibility be preserved, the female herself may use her right of self-preservation and choose whether her own life or that of her child shall fall a sacrifice.”Guy, Principles of Forensic Medicine, p. 145.

[149]Guy’s Hospital Reports, 1856, p. 12.

[150]Dublin Quarterly Journ. of Med. Science, August, 1858, p. 10.

[151]Radford, British Record of Obst. Medicine, 1848, p. 84.

[152]The rules of the Catholic Church upon this point have been already referred to. Suffice it to say, further, that while they enjoin the Cæsarean and vaginal sections, in preference to craniotomy and in cases of extra-uterine fœtation, yet turning, the use of forceps, and the induction of premature labor, where such are indicated, are distinctly allowed by them.Barry, Medico-Christian Embryology, pp. 41, 44, 45, 60.

[153]Guy’s Hosp. Reports, 1856, p. 4.

[154]For a full discussion of the respective merits of the several methods instanced above, seeSimpson, loc. cit., i. p. 738.I have lately contrived an instrument very similar to one not long since proposed by Spencer Wells for dilatation of the female urethra, which by a simple combination of the three principles involved, will probably prove of material service in the induction of premature labor. It may be called the uterine dilator, as it possesses many advantages over expansible tents for all cases of uterine disease where dilatation is necessary, either for diagnosis or treatment. A description of the instrument, and of its first application to obstetric practice, is published in the current number of the American Journal of the Medical Sciences.

[154]For a full discussion of the respective merits of the several methods instanced above, seeSimpson, loc. cit., i. p. 738.

I have lately contrived an instrument very similar to one not long since proposed by Spencer Wells for dilatation of the female urethra, which by a simple combination of the three principles involved, will probably prove of material service in the induction of premature labor. It may be called the uterine dilator, as it possesses many advantages over expansible tents for all cases of uterine disease where dilatation is necessary, either for diagnosis or treatment. A description of the instrument, and of its first application to obstetric practice, is published in the current number of the American Journal of the Medical Sciences.

[155]Bulletin de l’Académie, xvii. p. 364.

[156]British Record, etc., p. 82.

[157]I have elsewhere discussed this subject; American Journal of the Medical Sciences, January, 1859.

[158]Enchiridion Medicum, p. 510.

[159]Question d’Embryologie Médicale, etc.; Revue de l’Amérique et de l’Ouest, 1846.

[160]Joan. Riolan., Anthropographia, lib. vi. cap. vii. p. 589.

[161]Churchill, Dublin Quarterly Journ. of Med. Science, August, 1858, p. 22.

[162]A case in point has been reported by the writer; Amer. Journ. of the Med. Sciences, April, 1859.

[163]Reports to the Suffolk Dist. Med. Society of Massachusetts, 1857, and to the American Medical Association, 1859.

[164]“It would in my opinion,” says Ramsbotham, referring to the nature of fœtal existence, “be much better not to endeavor to explain the secrets of nature, so deeply hidden.”—(Obst. Medicine and Surgery, p. 309.) This belief seems still, in practice, very widely entertained.

[165]Clay, Obstetric Retrospect, March, 1848, p. 44.

[166]Medical Communications of the Mass. Med. Soc., 1858, p. 77.The writer having been a member of this committee, here enters, as he has already done by letter to the councillors of the Society, his earnest protest against the plainly erroneous opinion avowed in that report, which was presented and accepted during his absence from the State.By the laws of Massachusetts, the offence is considered as mainly against the person of the mother. In case of her death, already sufficiently provided for at common law, convictions can be effected, with great difficulty, under the statute,—as has twice occurred the present year, in the cases of Jackson and Brown; but hardly otherwise.

[166]Medical Communications of the Mass. Med. Soc., 1858, p. 77.

The writer having been a member of this committee, here enters, as he has already done by letter to the councillors of the Society, his earnest protest against the plainly erroneous opinion avowed in that report, which was presented and accepted during his absence from the State.

By the laws of Massachusetts, the offence is considered as mainly against the person of the mother. In case of her death, already sufficiently provided for at common law, convictions can be effected, with great difficulty, under the statute,—as has twice occurred the present year, in the cases of Jackson and Brown; but hardly otherwise.

[167]In this connection honorable mention is due Drs.TatumandJoynes, of Virginia, for their papers on “The Attributes of the Impregnated Germ,” and “Some of the Legal Relations of the Fœtus in Utero” (Virginia Medical Journal, 1856.) Through the agency of the latter of these gentlemen, an important modification has been made in the law of the State; as has also been effected in Wisconsin, by Dr.Brisbane.

[168]For valuable information in this connection, I am indebted to many friends, more particularly to Drs.Thayer, of New Hampshire,Phelps, of Vermont,Chas. Hooker, of Connecticut,Blatchford, of New York,Wood, of Pennsylvania,Thompson, of Delaware,Wroth, of Maryland,Brainard, of Illinois,Cameron, of Indiana,Leland, of Michigan,Le Boutillier, of Minnesota,Brisbane, of Wisconsin,Pope, of Missouri,Hoyt, of Tennessee,HaxallandJoynes, of Virginia,Semmes, of District of Columbia,Dickson, of North Carolina,Lopez, of Alabama,Barton, of Louisiana, (now of South Carolina,) and to my relatives,WoodburyandBellamy Storer, Esqrs., of Maine and Ohio, andJames M. Keith, Esq., of Boston, late District-Attorney for Norfolk and Plymouth Counties. In every instance, however, verification of the statutes has been made from copies in the State Library of Massachusetts.

[169]Davis, Criminal Justice, p. 482.

[170]1 Commentaries, 129.

[171]Ibid.

[172]43 George III., c. 58.

[173]9 Geo. IV., c. 31; 10 Geo. IV., c. 34.

[174]7 William IV.; 1 Vict., c. 85.

[175]To this list may also be added the Territory of Washington.

[176]The Territory of Kansas belongs to the above group.

[177]Compiled Statutes of Connecticut, 1854, p. 307.

[178]Revised Code of Mississippi, 1857, chap. 64, p. 601.

[179]Digest of Statutes of Arkansas, 1848, chap. 51, p. 325.

[180]Revised Statutes of Minnesota, 1851, chap. 100, p. 493.

[181]Statutes of Oregon, 1855, chap. 3, p. 310.

[182]Revised Statutes of Maine, 1857, chap. 124, p. 685.

[183]The above should evidently read “the first two sections,” to be possible.

[184]Compiled Statutes of New Hampshire, 1853, chap. 227, p. 544.

[185]Revised Statutes of New York, 1852, ii. pp. 847, 876. The last section of this statute does not require proof of pregnancy.

[186]Revised Statutes of Ohio, 1854, chap. 162, p. 296.

[187]Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1857, vol. ii. chap. 180, p. 1509. The statute of the Territory ofWashingtonis very similar to those above.“Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than twenty years, nor less than one year.“Every person who shall administer to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be pregnant, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years, nor less than one year, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than twelve months, nor less than one month, and be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.” Statutes of the Territory of Washington, 1855, p. 81.

[187]Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1857, vol. ii. chap. 180, p. 1509. The statute of the Territory ofWashingtonis very similar to those above.

“Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than twenty years, nor less than one year.

“Every person who shall administer to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be pregnant, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument, or other means, thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than five years, nor less than one year, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than twelve months, nor less than one month, and be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.” Statutes of the Territory of Washington, 1855, p. 81.

[188]Compiled Statutes of Vermont, 1850, chap. 108, p. 560.

[189]Supplement to the Revised Statutes of Massachusetts, 1849, p. 322.

[190]Statutes of Illinois, 1858, vol. i. p. 381.

[191]Revised Statutes of Wisconsin, 1858, chap. 169, sect. 58. It will be noticed that the second section of the above statute differs from the first, in not requiring the proof of pregnancy.

[192]Code of Virginia, 1849, chap. 191, p. 724.

[193]Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1856, i. chap. 50, p. 567.

[194]Code of Alabama, 1852, sect. 3230, p. 582.

[195]Revised Statutes of Louisiana, 1856, p. 138. By its wording, this statute might be forced into the next division.

[196]I insert this clause not merely for its relation to the points we are now considering, but for its important bearing on the broad question of infanticide during labor; concerning which it stands in bold and direct antagonism to all the rulings of the common law in this country and abroad. In other respects also, though not faultless, the Texas statute is rationally and admirably drawn.

[197]Penal Code of Texas, 1857, p. 103.

[198]Digest of Laws of California, 1857, art. 1905, p. 334. The statute of the Territory ofKansas, similar to the above, is as follows:—“Every physician or other person who shall willfully administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or means whatsoever, with intent thereby to procure abortion, or the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, or shall have been advised by a physician to be necessary for that purpose, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Statutes of Kansas, 1855, chap. 48, p. 243.

[198]Digest of Laws of California, 1857, art. 1905, p. 334. The statute of the Territory ofKansas, similar to the above, is as follows:—

“Every physician or other person who shall willfully administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or means whatsoever, with intent thereby to procure abortion, or the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, or shall have been advised by a physician to be necessary for that purpose, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Statutes of Kansas, 1855, chap. 48, p. 243.

[199]We have already commented upon the phraseology of the Louisiana statute. The latitude of its first clause is shown by the context to have been unintentional, and therefore hardly justifies a change in its classification. The second section of the Statute of Washington Territory, however, is closely analogous to that now given; while the final sections of the statutes both of New York and Wisconsin, which make it penal for a woman voluntarily to effect or submit to the unjustifiable induction of abortion, are equally silent regarding proof of the existence of pregnancy.

[200]Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1852, p. 437.

[201]Rexvs.Phillips, 3Campbell, 77;Russell, Crim. Law, 553-4; 1Gabbett, Crim. Law, 522; 1Bishop, Crim. Law, 386.

[202]Statevs.Cooper, 2Zabriskie, 52, 57; Rexvs.Russell, 1Moody, 356, 360.

[203]Reginavs.Wycherley, 8CarringtonandPayne, 265.

[204]The Peoplevs.Jackson, 3Hill, N. Y. Reports, 92;Wharton, Criminal Law, 98.

[205]Davis, Crim. Justice, 484.

[206]Wharton, Amer. Crim. Law, 424.

[207]Wharton, Amer. Crim. Law, 75.

[208]The Statevs.Vawter, 7Blackford, 592.

[209]1Gabbett, Crim. Law, 523;Archbold, P. A., lxx, 2.

[210]Roscoe, L. E., 242; Eng. Com. L. Rep., xxv. 453; Rexvs.Coe, 6Car. & P., 403; Vaughan, 13.

[211]1Bishop, Crim. Law, 527.

[212]In Massachusetts, though the statute is silent on these points, it is asserted that whenever a potion is given, or other means are used, by “a surgeon,” for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, the case is free of malice, and has a lawful justification.Davis, Crim. Justice, 282; Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners, 1844, Causing Abortion, I., notea.

[213]After a little reflection, it will be seen that this word is not so open to objection as might at first be supposed.

[214]1Russell, Crimes, 671; 1Vesey, 86; 3Coke, Inst., 50; 1Hawkins, C. B., s. 16; 1Hale, 434; 1East, P. C., 90; 3Chitty, Crim. Law, 798;Wharton, Crim. Law, 537.

[215]Davis, Crim. Justice, 486.

[216]Archbold, Crim. Pleading, 490.

[217]Reginavs.Trilloe, 2Moody, C. C., 260, 413.

[218]The Statevs.Cooper, 2Zabriskie, 52;Hanes, U. S. Digest, 5.

[219]The Commonwealthvs.Parker, 9Metcalf, 263; The Commonwealthvs.Bangs, 9 Mass., 387; The Statevs.Cooper, 2Zabriskie, 57;Hanes, U. S. Digest, 5; Smithvs.State, 33Maine, (3Red.) 48.

[220]Bishop, Crim. Law, 386; Millsvs.The Commonw., 1Harris, Pa., 631, 633.

[221]Wharton, Crim. Law of the U. S., 537.

[222]1Russell, Crimes, 661; 1Vesey, 86; 3Coke, Inst., 50; 1Hawkins, c. 13, s. 16;Bracton, 1. 3, c. 21.

[223]Bac.Ab., tit. Infants.

[224]2Vernon, 710.

[225]Doevs.Clark, 2 H. Bl., 399; 2Vesey, jr., 673; Thellussonvs.Woodford, 4Vesey, 340; Swiftvs.Duffield, 6Serg. & Rawle, 38.

[226]Fearne, 429.

[227]2Vernon, 710; The Commonwealthvs.Demain, 6 Penn. Law Journ., 29;Brightly, 441.

[228]1Hale, 90; The Commonw.vs.Chauncey, 1Ashmead, 227; Smithvs.State, 33Maine, (3Red.) 48.

[229]Ibid.;Hanes, U. S. Digest, 5.

[230]Wharton, Law of Homicide, 44.

[231]The Commonw.vs.Parker, 9Metcalf, 263, 265;Davis, Crim. Justice, 281.

[232]1Blackstone, 129; Rexvs.Senior, 1Moody, C. C., 346; 3 Inst., 50;Wharton, C. L., 537; Ibid., Law of Homicide, 93.

[233]Rexvs.West, 2Carr. & Kir., 784; 1Bishop, C. L., 255;Wharton, Law of Homicide, 93.

[234]Rexvs.Scudder, 1Moody, 216, 3Car. & P., 605, overruling Rexvs.Phillips, 3Campbell, 73;Russell, Cr., 763, note.

[235]If made without her consent?

[236]Reginavs.Goodchild, 2Car. & Kir., 293; Rexvs.Goodhall, 1Den.C. C., 187; 3Campbell, 76.

[237]1Bishop, Crim. Law, 518.

[238]1Bishop, Crim. Law, 385.

[239]Wharton, Crim. Law, 541.

[240]1Harris, Pa., 631, 633.

[241]Lee, Note to Guy’s Principles of Forensic Medicine, p. 134.

[242]Beccaria, Crimes and Punishments, 104.

[243]“An efficient, and practical remedy for the prevention of this crime would be a law requiring the causes of death to be certified by the physician in attendance, or where there has been no physician, by one called in for the purpose. In this way the cause of death, both in infants and mothers, could be traced to attempts to procure abortion. In three cases which occurred in Boston, in 1855, the death was reported by friends to be owing to natural causes, and in each it was subsequently ascertained that the patient died in consequence of injuries received in procuring abortion. It is probable that such cases are by no means rare; and if the cause of death were known, an immediate investigation might lead to the detection of the guilty party.” (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Dec., 1857, p. 365.)

[244]Register of the Morgue.

[245]From 1846 to 1850, 188 cases of criminal abortion were discovered in Paris, but for want of proof, only 22 of them were sent to trial. (Comptes Rendus Ann. de la Justice Criminelle.)

[246]Report on the Medico-legal duties of Coroner. 1857.

[247]Radford, British Record of Obstetric Medicine, vol. i. p. 55.

[248]Wharton, Criminal Law, 540.

[249]Smithvs.The State, 33Maine, (3Red.) 48.

[250]Rexvs.Phillips; Reginavs.Goodall; Reg.vs.Haynes, etc.

[251]Taylor, Med. Jurisprudence, p. 386.

[252]Percival, Medical Ethics, p. 84.

[253]Ibid., p. 85.

[254]Loc. cit., article 317.

[255]Report to Suffolk District Med. Society, May, 1857, p. 12.

[256]In this connection, I cannot too strongly deprecate a practice that has lately been proposed, the detection, namely, of the early existence of pregnancy by the administration of ergot. (Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, April, 1859, p. 197.) The use of ergot for this purpose, in however small a dose, would seem utterly unjustifiable.

[257]Fifteenth Massachusetts Registration Report, 1857, p. 199.

[258]Quetelet, Theory of Probabilities, p. 234.

[259]New York Med. Gazette, Editorial; London Medical Times and Gazette, 1850, p. 487.

[260]Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Editorial, 1855, p. 411.

[261]Dean, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 139.

[262]Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, Editorial, Dec. 13, 1855.

[263]American Medical Gazette, Editorial, July, 1857, p. 390.

[264]Ibid., April 1859, p. 289.

[265]Maine Med. and Surg. Reporter, Editorial, June, 1858, p. 39.

[266]Deville, Researches on the proportion of still-born children compared with the mortality of the City of Paris during the thirteen years, 1846-58. Memoirs of the French Academy, 1859.

[267]New Hampshire Journal of Medicine, Editorial, July, 1857, p. 216.

[268]London Lancet, Editorial, July, 1858, p. 66.

[269]Tatum, Virginia Med. Journal, June, 1856, p. 457.

[270]Loc. cit., p. 19.

[271]The Councillors of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Proceedings of the Society, 1858, p. 77.

[272]Phillips, On Evidence, i. p. 135;Ryan, Medical Jurisprudence, p. 193;Storer, Sen., Introductory Address, 1855, p. 10;Simpson, Physicians and Physic, p. 31.

[273]Proceedings of the Society, 1858.

[274]Man Transformed. Oxford, 1653.

[275]“Resolved, That while physicians have long been united in condemning the procuring of abortion, at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child, it has become the duty of this Association, in view of the prevalence and increasing frequency of the crime, publicly to enter an earnest and solemn protest against such unwarrantable destruction of human life.“Resolved, That in pursuance of the grand and noble calling we profess,—the saving of human life,—and of the sacred responsibilities thereby devolving upon us, the Association present this subject to the attention of the several legislative assemblies of the Union, with the prayer that the laws by which the crime of abortion is attempted to be controlled may be revised, and that such other action may be taken in the premises as they in their wisdom may deem necessary.“Resolved, That the Association request the zealous co-operation of the various State medical societies in pressing this subject upon the legislatures of their respective States, and that the president and secretaries of the Association are hereby authorized to carry out, by memorial, these resolutions.”—Transactions of the Am. Med. Association, 1859, vol. xii. p. 75.

“Resolved, That in pursuance of the grand and noble calling we profess,—the saving of human life,—and of the sacred responsibilities thereby devolving upon us, the Association present this subject to the attention of the several legislative assemblies of the Union, with the prayer that the laws by which the crime of abortion is attempted to be controlled may be revised, and that such other action may be taken in the premises as they in their wisdom may deem necessary.

“Resolved, That the Association request the zealous co-operation of the various State medical societies in pressing this subject upon the legislatures of their respective States, and that the president and secretaries of the Association are hereby authorized to carry out, by memorial, these resolutions.”—Transactions of the Am. Med. Association, 1859, vol. xii. p. 75.

Back to Index Next