SOCIETY MEETINGS. 
77 
ing, provided the said alteration or amendment has been proposed in writing at 
a previous meeting by two members, and any article or section of these By-Laws 
may be suspended during a single meeting by the unanimous consent of the mem¬ 
bers present, except the suspension be to vote on the alteration or amendment of the 
By-Laws. W. H. Ridge, W. L. Zuill. 
Discussion followed as to the best method to be employed to 
collect initiation fees and dues. 
Dr. Hoskins moved that the Secretary comply with the re¬ 
port and recommendations of the Treasurer. 
After considerable discussion, in which several participated, 
the motion carried. 
At this stage, 1:15 P.M., a motion to adjourn for luncheon 
was entertained, after which all present soared to higher realms, 
where, through the generosity of the Philadelphia members, a 
bounteous repast had been provided. 
AFTERNOON SESSION 
was called to order by the President, Dr. Pearson. 
Dr. Hoskins called up the amendment to Article V., Sec. 20, 
By-Laws. 
Dr. Ridge favored adhering to the old rule. 
Dr. Hoskins thought we had given the members ample and 
fair trial; that inasmuch as the members didn’t respond to the 
Secretary’s letters, while sharing the profits, he wanted the 
amendment enforced. 
Dr. Zuill considered the action taken at the last meeting 
illegal, on account of the absence of a quorum ; but the chair 
decided that the meeting was regularly called, therefore the ac¬ 
tion was legal. Dr. Zuill appealed from the decision, but the 
Association upheld the chair by a rising vote. 
Dr. Stanton favored something more stimulating, in a literary 
way, to the delinquents. 
Dr. Goentner considered it unfair to expel a member on 
account of absence at three consecutive meetings, as long as his 
dues remained paid, as some might be unable to attend through 
inability to procure a substitute. 
Dr. Rechtenwalt said he would be compelled to resign if the 
amendment was enforced. 
Dr. Hoskins thought it would be an incentive to better 
attendance. 
Dr. Harger considered coercion to attendance a bad incentive, 
that the adoption of such an amendment was equal to a punish¬ 
ment for a personal transgression. 
Dr. Zuill thought it unconstitutional, that if a member pays 
his dues, he is a member, and cannot be compelled to attend. 
