Roberts H A
[ The Editors assume no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this department ].
Seattle, Wash., April 18, 1932.
To the Editor of the Recorder:.
KING COUNTY HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL SOCIETY.
On April 11th, 1932, a group of homoeopathic physicians of the City of Seattle, Washington, met at the office of Drs. Palmer and Palmer, Seaboard Bank Building, at 8.00 p.m., and decided to reopen meetings of the King County Homoeopathic Medical Society, which had long discontinued.
It was the sense of this group that instead of a reorganization we would consider our meeting a continuation of the King County Homoeopathic activities after a long cessation of meetings, the constitution and by-laws remaining intact.
Dr. Mooers moved, and Dr. Bryant seconded, a motion that Dr. Chapman be nominated as President. Nomination closed.
Moved and carried that Dr. Bryant be nominated as Secretary and Treasurer. Nominations closed, and it was the unanimous sense of the meeting that a unanimous ballot be cast for the two officers selected.
Moved and carried that we meet on the second Monday of each month at 8.00 p.m., at a place to be designated by the Secretary.
Moved by Dr. Appleton, and carried, that the program be provided by the members in alphabetical order.
Moved by Dr. W.G. Palmer, and carried, that steps be taken to re-organize the Washington State Homoeopathic Medical Society. This was held over until the following meeting.
Members present: Drs. T.J. Appleton, C.P. Bryant, N.S. Checkos, J.B. Chapman, A.B. and W. C. Palmer. C.P. BRYANT, Secretary.
Toledo, Ohio, May 16, 1932.
To the Editor of The Homoeopathic Recorder.
I had the opportunity and privilege of attending the 68th annual convention of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Ohio, held at the Netherland Plaza Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 12th.
To me, the Bureau of Homoeopathy and Materia Medica was the very best that has ever been presented before that body. The two outstanding papers were: What Does Homoeopathy Means? by Dr. C.M. Boger, and The Keystone to the Prescription, by Dr. D.T. Pulford. Two better papers I have never heard, and, if they have not fallen on barren ground, they should be of immense import to those who were privileged to hear them, for Dr. Boger drove home some stinging facts.
The members of this society owe a deep debt of gratitude to Dr. J.E. Rowland, of Cleveland, for his presentation of that bureau, and the fine manner in which he both selected his essayists and conducted the bureau itself.
The homoeopaths of Ohio need a renewed introduction to homoeopathy, and Dr. Rowland has given them a good start. It was a severe arraingement of the members, when our only colored representative present arose to remark that “that was the first and only homoeopathic paper he had heard since he graduated.