CHARLES CALDWELL, M. D.



modern invasion of the domains of physiology by microscopy and
chemistry.
  We believe that Dr. Caldwell was first brought into public
notice by some observations which he published on the yellow
fever, which was then prevailing, or which had recently pre-
vailed, in Philadelphia. It was these observations that led to the
controversy with Rush just now alluded to. In the same connec-
tion, his attention was directed to the causes of epidemic disease,
generally to hygiene, and to medical practice, and his writings on
these subjects, at this and other periods of his life, are among the
most valuable of their kind that we possess. They have unques-
tionably done much to enlighten both the public and professional
mind; as an instance, we may cite the disuse of the old systems
of quarantine that were so troublesome, so expensive, so mis-
chievous, and, at the same time, so barren of any good result.
Some of the doctrine; advocated by him met with powerful op-
position both at home and abroad; but time, which is truth, has
set its seal upon them. While still very young, Dr. Caldwell
was appointed Professor of Natural History in the Pennsylvania
University-an evidence both of his scientific attainments and of
the high standing he was in among the men of that period. This
appointment gave him full scope for his favorite studies, and the
result was seen a few years later, in his reply to Dr. Stanhope
Smith's Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure
of the Human Species-a reply so effectual that it not only killed
the book, but caused such chagrin and mortification to the author
of it as to hasten his death. At a period still later, after Dr. Cald-
well had taken up his residence in the west, he published a small
volume in answer to the second edition of Prichard's Researches
into the Physical History of Man. To our thinking, Dr. Caldwell's
volume contains a complete refutation of the views of Prichard.
It covers, almost without exception, the whole ground, and,
although, since its publication twenty years have elapsed, during
which ethnology has been assiduously cultivated, its facts and
arguments are as conclusive to-day as they were then. We men-
tion this matter more particularly, because the question has re-
cently excited renewed discussion among the scientific men of
the country.
  The subject of prison discipline is one in which Dr. Caldwell



447