630 
SOCIETY MEETINGS. 
tioned by the essayist follow the operation. At the same 
time, owing to lack of experience in this matter, he was not 
prepared to condemn the operation as performed. 
Dr. Maclay stated that the subject of “ Laryngotomy ” 
was one in which he had not had much experience, but he 
agreed with the essayist in that Fleming’s method had not 
been successful. He complimented the essayist very highly 
on the originality of his remarks; he said he believed that 
the matter could be more thoroughly discussed after they 
had witnessed the essayist perform the operation. 
The essayist, in defending his paper, gave his reasons for 
believing his method of operating to be superior to the Flem¬ 
ing method; he produced a dried larynx of a horse, and 
pointed out on the specimen where he believed Prof. Fleming 
erred when he performed the operation. 
Dr. Orvis then arose, and said that if the operation as per¬ 
formed by the essayist was followed by beneficial results, he 
was willing to admit that it was superior to the Fleming 
method. He said this was a subject in which he was greatly 
interested, and that he would like to have it discussed by 
every member present. 
Dr. Maclay said that as no one present knew much about 
the operation it was useless to discuss it. 
Dr. Orvis desired to know how we were to learn anything 
about this operation unless we discuss it, as it was very sel¬ 
dom we could procure a roarer to operate on. Also that we 
have to rely on these discussions to gain knowledge on this 
subject, as there was no literature on it. 
After the subject matter had been discussed by most of 
the members present, the President closed with a few remarks. 
He agreed with Dr. Maclay that the subject could be dis¬ 
cussed more thoroughly after they had witnessed the opera¬ 
tion. He said the essayist was to be commended for the 
originality of his revision of this operation, inasmuch as'he 
had given us food for study and reflection, and which, if we 
determine it to be the best mode of procedure, certainly re¬ 
duces the magnitude of the operation and simplifies it, also 
unquestionably makes recovery more rapid. 
