troubles and proceeded to the halls of justice, there to solve the problems and troubles of others. From the desert solitudes he looked off into the whirling life of the State and saw its great political needs. This man, born in utter poverty, a child of misery baptized with tears, had come through the agony of suffering into a most intimate knowledge and realization of the lives and hopes and aspirations of the common people. Through his studies he had become familiar with the past and the present. So aided, he looked into the future. With a fine, philosophic intellect correlated with human sympathy and human knowledge, he was becoming a statesman. A time soon came when he was called from his retired life in the desert to start and to take a prominent part in the political revolution that has taken place in this State in the last few years. In leaving the desert he well knew he was bidding farewell to length of life, but he longed for action, as he had longed for knowledge. "As the hart panteth after the water brooks," so panted his soul for the conflict. He preferred to live a briefer, but a fuller life, where opportunity was greater for service to the State. Literally he sacrificed his life on the altar of the State.

Jack Eshleman became the head of the reorganized Railroad Commission of California, and through his constructive ability and supreme courage the great work of that body was begun and given its impulse, and he became widely known throughout the country. In due time Jack Eshleman became the Lieutenant Governor of the State and presided over the Senate with dignity and power. By virtue of his office he was also a Regent of this University. Had he lived, there can be doubt that he would have been Governor of the State and then United States Senator; for the people delighted to do him honor.

He was no iconoclast and extreme radical. He had poise and sanity. He indeed was a true conservative, designing to preserve and conserve all that is good in our political system and to introduce certain principles of action which

he believed were imperatively necessary to promote the well-being of the State. He loved democracy with all his heart, and he showed it in all his life. He hated autocracy in all its forms. His heart was with the comman man, to give him freedom and therefore happiness.

Jack Eshleman was bravely and energetically engaged in most strenuous endeavors when, in an instant, at the height of his fortune, he passed away from the scene, not of his weakness, but of his glory. Such was the end of this man. He was worthy of the University, and the living need not desire to have a spirit more heroic, although they may pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be given in words.

Graduated from this University in 1902, in less than fourteen years, before he was forty years old, Jack Eshleman, a child of misery, hampered by great physical weakness but possessed of fine mind and splendid will, did more than almost any other man that ever lived in the State to leave the impress of his life forever upon California. He showed elements of statesmanship, and had he lived we must believe that his abilities would have continued to evolve and would have shown to us a man of almost limitless powers and growth.

He had a most winsome and childlike simplicity of character. Though he knew he lived dangerously, being ever under the imminent menace of sudden Death, yet he did not let it embitter him, for he was exceedingly sweet in disposition. Perhaps the outstanding features of his personality were courage, sympathy and high idealism. He was a devoted husband and loving father. His capacity for friendship is attested by the genuine sorrow that has been shown by so many who knew him. His Alma Mater mourns today for her worthy son, who, though he be dead, yet still lives!

I have told you the simple story of the life of John Morton Eshleman. I have spoken his highest praise, for in telling the facts of his heroic life, I have magnified the man himself, and my tribute is complete.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL SCIENCE TO MEDICAL ART AS SHOWN IN THE STUDY

OF TYPHOID FEVER*

FREDERICK P. GAY

I interpret the gratifying invitation of the Academic Senate to appear before you as Faculty Research Lecturer for the current year not only as an opportunity of assembling and correlating a group of facts that I have been studying, but also as allowing me to attempt an explanation of the method by which such facts are obtained. I wish in particular to suggest how one of the more theoretic or so-called scientific branches of medicine is utilized in the practical problem of preventing and curing disease.

There is little reason why many of you should have attempted to differentiate between medicine as an Art and medicine as a Science. Public interest and concern in medicine deals largely as it is applied to the individual or community and little with the scientific and more theoretic investigations on which the progress of applied medicine depends. Medicine to the layman is typified in the physician who attends him, and it is the noble and satisfactory function of this individual to ease the mind and body of his patient and frequently so to apply his knowledge of human structure and function in health and disease as to avert death and hasten recovery. The practitioner employs the art of medicine, that is to say he combines, modifies,

The annual Faculty Research Lecture at the University of California, delivered on Charter Day, March 23, 1916, on invitation of the Academic Senate.

and adapts certain recognized means to effect a given end. There exists, however, a type of work in medicine with which the public comes less in contact and which concerns itself primarily with the fundamental understanding and elaboration of those very means of prevention, relief, and cure which the physician applies.

It would naturally occur to you that the individual best fitted to discover means of understanding and thereby of combating disease, would be one fully conversant with its manifestations and results through constant and persistent contact with the sick. Such indeed was the development of medical science through many centuries. I need only mention categorically a few of the great discoveries that have been made during the centuries by practicing physicians. Galen, in the second century of our era, showed that control of the muscles depends on integrity of the nerves that run to them, by the simple experiment of cutting certain of them in animals. In the sixteenth century Vesalius not only founded the science of anatomy but described the mechanism of breathing and introduced artificial respiration. Harvey in the seventeenth century experimentally demonstrated the mode of circulation of the blood in the animal body. Thomas Young laid the foundation of physiological optics and explained the principle of color differentiation. Jenner showed conclusively that inoculation with cow-pox will protect against small-pox, and thereby laid the foundations of vaccination as a preventive of many infectious, parasitic diseases. Morton, in the last century discovered the principle of anesthesia which has made surgery painless.

You will notice that these examples consist entirely of contributions which may be regarded as fundamental principles rather than adaptations of such principles however practically valuable; in other words it is a list of discoveries rather than of inventions; on such a basis I have omitted Lister's great application of Pasteur's principles of bacterial contamination in aseptic and antiseptic surgery. You

may further observe that the contributors cited have worked on experimental rather than purely deductive lines; I have not, for instance, mentioned the important work of Auenbrugger who associated certain percussion notes over the chest wall with disease conditions in the lungs and heart. I trust I shall be able to convince you that essential advance in medicine as in other biological sciences, lies in the development of principles through inductive experimentation.

In the popular mind and in popular fiction it is still the well known practitioner who is the great contributor to medical science. As a matter of fact today, and for many years, the progress has been largely due to a group of workers who are concerned little, or often not at all, with the care of the sick. Many major discoveries have been made by men with no medical training at all. I may simply mention among the latter Pasteur and Metchnikoff, whose contributions we shall later consider in more detail. This differentiation in medicine of a group of medical or even non-medical men from medical practitioners, is a specialization or division of labor unknown to the general public or else misunderstood. Even the medical profession itself is frequently ignorant of this division. Its development is, however, quite logical and tending toward greater efficiency.

Progress in medical treatment a hundred years ago, and to a great extent fifty years ago, depended almost entirely on deductions that were ingeniously made from personal experience with the sick. The greater such an experience was, the greater and more complete the series of facts obtained, the more valuable the deductions from them. Nothing approaching a complete series of facts, and particularly of facts in their chronological order, was possible until experimental methods were employed. As Neuberger has stated, collection and observation of fact constitute the first step in science but not science itself. With the application of the methods that had already been utilized in the sciences of physics and chemistry to biology and medicine, it has often