THEOBALD SMITH I I'J 



toxin would probably have been condemned as both use- 

 less and cruel by the petitioners. 



Let me now briefly state my objections to the bill before 

 us: 



i. Section I a limits experimentation in such a way that 

 the very large field of animal diseases is excluded. Though 

 in most cases of indirect benefit to human medicine, ex- 

 periments in this field are as a rule undertaken solely for 

 the suppression and eradication of animal plagues, i. e., for 

 economic means. The bearing of this paragraph () upon 

 the performing of painful operations upon domestic ani- 

 mals without the use of anesthetics such as dehorning 

 cattle, castrating, caponizing, and spaying remains doubt- 

 ful. These operations are as a rule performed without the 

 use of anesthetics. 



This paragraph furthermore brings out by contrast the 

 fact that any man by assuming the title of veterinarian 

 may perform painful operations upon animals. This Com- 

 monwealth has refused to protect the educated veterinarian 

 by licensing him, although such limitation was strongly 

 urged several years ago by the ablest veterinarians of the 

 State. 



This same paragraph may also interfere with certain 

 work of the Massachusetts Agricultural College at Amherst. 



Section i is essentially a blow at advanced methods of 

 instruction now generally adopted in all teaching of natural 

 science. The fundamental principle involved is that no 

 student should be forced to accept any other person's 

 description or interpretation of any phenomenon which he 

 can with but little extra labor investigate for himself. The 

 section also deprives young men of the opportunity of 

 preparing themselves to become assistants until practically 

 too late. 



Section i b, and indeed the whole bill, by restricting its 

 privileges to the graduate physician and surgeon, and 



