Section I. 
SANITARY SCIENCE AND HYGIENE. 
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT, 
J. W. SPRINGTHORPE, M.A., M.D., Melb., M.R.O.P. Lond., 
Lecturer on Hygiene , £{c., University of Melbourne ; Physician to the 
Melbourne Hospital. 
THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE IN MATTERS OF HEALTH. 
Upon matters of health, as upon all matters of human interest, 
three voices have, during the ages, claimed to speak to man with more 
or less of authority — the voice of the priest, the voice of the 
philosopher, and the voice of the scientist. Each in turn has 
dominated the rest, none have ever become perfectly silent, and all 
have possessed, and probably still possess, a distinct value. 
It is not without interest to find that their pre-eminence corres- 
ponds in the main with developmental periods. Thus, explain it how 
you will, the voice that mainly arrested attention in the childhood 
of the race was that of superhuman authority, vested in the seer. 
Then it was the priest that was the medicine man ; health was the 
gift of the gods, disease the result of their displeavsure. In time this 
voice became clothed with the added authority of the established 
religion, so that even in early European history we find different 
organs of the body placed under the care of patron saints, and 
different remedies introduced by special form of supplication. Nor is 
this authority without honour in the present day. Within the last 
few months we read of cholera being exorcised by the sign of the cross 
at Kazan in Russia, of the plague treated by incantation in China, and 
“ faith cures u reported in both France and England. And by many 
who regard such miraculous results rather as the effects of expectant 
attention upon plastic minds, the registered, or (as perhaps even 
oftener occurs) the unregistered practitioner of their choice, is still 
practically regarded as one who by pills and potions can secure health 
and banish disease. 
With advance in civilisation, however, we find very generally that 
the authoritative utterance of the priestly medicine man becomes 
challenged, and it may be even dethroned by another claimant — the 
voice of cultivated human reason. Now it is the philosopher that is 
the healer, and disease is a matter of finely woven theories, spun with 
the thread of introspective subtleties. In the medicine of the middle 
ages we see what these authorities could do in conflict and in concert. 
I am aware, of course, that from the time of Hippocrates the tradition 
continuously existed that the healer should be a student of nature ; 
but it will be generally admitted that the designation “ physician ” 
was used in name only, and that for all intents and purposes the 
