cussion opened by Dr. H. S. Wagner, Hartford, and Dr. Henry F. Stoll, Hartford.)

Respectfully submitted,

WALTER R. STEINER.

DR. WALTER R. STEINER (Hartford): I would suggest that next year, it being the anniversary of the founding of the Yale Medical School, we substitute for the scientific programme of the first afternoon of the meeting, when papers on special subjects are usually read, clinics and demonstrations by the professors of the Yale Medical School, to be given at the University and at the New Haven Hospital.

THE PRESIDENT: The next is the Report of the Committee on Honorary Members and Degrees, of which Dr. Frank K. Hallock, of Cromwell, is chairman. He is not here, so we will pass to the Report of the Committee on Arrangements. Dr. Everett J. McKnight is the chairman of this Committee, and he is still absent; but perhaps some other member of the Committee can make the report.

DR. CHARLES D. ALTON (Hartford): As the second member on that Committee, I would say that we are expecting Dr. McKnight, and that he may be here before the transactions of the morning are finished. Shall we wait for him, or shall I tell you what I can?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better hear from Dr. Alton. DR. CHARLES D. ALTON: We have arranged a smoker to be held here this evening, by the courtesy of the Hartford Medical Society. That smoker will begin at eight o'clock, or as early as you please to come.

The banquet will be to-morrow evening, in the building adjoining, the Hartford Club; and that will be at seven o'clock. I might say that I have in my pocket tickets for the banquet, if anyone wishes to obtain them. I hope that a large number will remain; because a number of speakers have been invited and other arrangements have been made, so that we feel that the evening will be exceedingly pleasant for you. I do not know that there is anything else for me to say.

DR. O. C. SMITH (Hartford): In relation to the banquet, I wish to say that the entrance is not through the front of the Hartford Club, but down the mutual driveway and then to the right.

(8) Report of Committee on Public Policy and Legislation:

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC POLICY AND LEGISLATION.

At the annual meeting of the House of Delegates in New Haven on May 23, 1912, the Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation was instructed to request the State Board of Health to review the Eva Ginsberg case.

The Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation respectfully reports that inasmuch as many members of the said State Board of Health were out of town at the time of the July meeting of said Board and only routine business would be transacted, he deferred taking action until the regular meeting of the Board on October 17, 1912. At that time he personally appeared before the Board and requested it to review the case, giving, as he thought, good and sufficient reasons why this should be done and leaving with it for reference a communication of which the following is a correct copy:

Connecticut State Board of Health, Hartford, Conn.:

GENTLEMEN :-At the annual meeting of the Connecticut State Medical Society held in New Haven on May 22 and 23, 1912, the House of Delegates unanimously instructed the Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation to request the State Board of Health to review the case of Eva Ginsberg of New Britain, a revocation of whose license to practice midwifery had been requested by the entire membership of the Society of Regular Physicians of New Britain.

After careful consideration of the case the Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation finds that in the year 1905 Eva Ginsburg was convicted of manslaughter following criminal abortion, a felony for which she served one year in jail; that on December 2, 1910, the Society of Regular Physicians of New Britain furnished the State Board of Medical Examiners, through which said Eva Ginsburg had obtained her license to practice midwifery, with a certified copy of Mrs. Ginsburg's conviction, asking the said Board to request the State Board of Health in its official capacity to revoke her license as a midwife; that there was

immediately forwarded by the Secretary of said Board of Examiners to the State Board of Health a request signed by every member of said Board of Examiners that said Eva Ginsburg's license be revoked; that the matter was in the hands of said State Board of Health for a long time and that their final refusal to revoke her license was said to be due to the length of time which had elapsed between her conviction and the request for the revocation of her license and the opinion of certain members of said State Board of Health that said Eva Ginsburg was being persecuted by certain members of the Society of Regular Physicians of New Britain whose practice was being interfered with by her.

As regards the former, the Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation finds that the State Board of Health admitted that the statute of limitations had no application in this case. As regards the latter, he has made a careful investigation and finds that the physician who was suspected of endeavoring to persecute Mrs. Ginsburg was only called into the case sometime after the request for the revocation of her license had been filed and then only as an interpreter; that the length of time which had elapsed between her conviction and the request for the revocation of her license is sufficient evidence that no persecution was thought of, or intended, it only having been made after she had for some time been openly engaged in the practice of medicine and gynecology without a license.

The Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation fails to understand why the State Board of Health should not have at an early date issued an order for the revocation of the license to practice midwifery in the case of Mrs. Eva Ginsburg in accordance with the spirit and intent of the law in such cases provided. Having failed to take such action at the proper time, said Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation is of the opinion that it is the duty of said State Board of Health to review the case and if possible to revoke said license in order that a most unfortunate precedent may not be established in cases of this kind.

As Chairman of the Committee on Public Policy and Legislation of the Connecticut State Medical Society, acting under instructions from that organization, I urgently request your honorable body to review the case of the revocation of the license of Mrs. Eva Ginsburg and give it your careful and unbiased consideration.

Very truly yours,

E. J. MCKNIGHT,

Chairman.

At this meeting the history of the case was gone over very carefully and later the following communication was received from the State Board of Health:

November 8, 1912.

Dr. E. J. McKnight, Chairman, Committee on Public Policy and Legislation, Conn. State Medical Society, Hartford, Conn.:

DEAR SIR-Replying to the written communication submitted by you to this Board at its last regular meeting, October 17, 1912, we would say that under date of December 5, 1910, this Board received a communication from the Medical Examining Board as follows: "That the members of the Connecticut Medical Examining Board, because of records herewith submitted, request you to revoke and cancel the certificate of registration granted by you in 1902 to Eva Ginsberg." The record submitted was a record of the conviction of Mrs. Ginsberg for manslaughter following abortion in December, 1905. After paying the penalty for this conviction, Mrs. Ginsberg returned to New Britain, her home, and continued in the practice of midwifery as she had before for a period of four years, without complaint of anybody.

The communication of the Medical Examining Board was brought before this Board at its next regular meeting in January, 1911, and was postponed until the April meeting of the Board, when it was voted to notify Mrs. Ginsberg to appear and show cause why her license should not be revoked. At a special meeting of the Board, holden on the 26th day of May, 1911, a full hearing was had in the case. The case was further adjourned and an opportunity given to the physicians of New Britain who might have some knowledge of her conduct as midwife to appear before the Board, and after a full hearing the Board passed the following vote:

"That on May 3, 1912, the State Board of Health had under consideration the application of the Connecticut Medical Examining Board to revoke the license to practice midwifery of Mrs. Eva Ginsberg of New Britain, granted her by this Board in 1902. The only evidence offered which we could consider was her conviction in the Superior Court of Hartford County at the December, 1905, term. In view of the long time that has elapsed since her conviction, and in view of the further fact that this Board is of the opinion that Eva Ginsberg has not intentionally violated the law since that time, we do not feel justified in revoking her license."

This Board has further considered the matter as presented verbally by you and in the written communication, and has voted to adhere to its original vote for the reasons therein stated.

Yours very truly,

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF HEALTH,

JOSEPH H. TOWNSEND, Secretary.

Never in the history of this Society have so many measures been introduced into our General Assembly as we have had

confronting us at this Session and never for several years has your Chairman felt so uncertain as to the results as he did early in the Session.

Through the efforts of Dr. Frank K. Hallock, an ex-President of this Society, a Committee of five appointed by the President of the Connecticut Bar Association met a Committee consisting of E. J. McKnight, F. K. Hallock, W. H. Carmalt, George Blumer and S. B. Overlock, appointed by the President of the Connecticut State Medical Society, and as a result three bills relating to Expert Medical Testimony were drawn up and introduced into the present Session of the General Assembly.

[House Bill No. 642.]

An Act concerning Commitments of Persons Charged with Crime where Insanity is a Defense, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

SECTION I. When a person is charged with a criminal offense, or is committed to jail on a criminal charge by a justice of the peace, city or town court, the judge of the Superior Court before whom such person is to be tried, or is being tried, may, after hearing, if a defense of insanity will be made, order such person into the care of the superintendent of the State Hospital for the Insane at Middletown, or at Norwich, to be there detained and observed until further order of such judge, or of the Superior Court held for the transaction of criminal business, in the county wherein the crime is alleged to have been committed.

SEC. 2. Whenever any person charged with a criminal offense has been put to plead for such offense, his counsel, if it is intended that a defense of insanity will be made, shall, at the earliest possible time before the commencement of the trial before a jury, inform the court in writing of such defense.

[House Bill No. 643.]

An Act concerning the Personal Examination of Plaintiffs in Action for Personal Injury, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

SECTION 1. After the filing of the complaint in all civil actions brought for the recovery of damages for personal injuries not resulting in death, the defendant, upon written notice, made to and granted by the court, shall have the right to reasonable personal examinations of the person