HAROLD C. ERNST 133 



while ensraeed in vivisection, and it then becomes a 



O O 



question of fact for the magistrate and jurymen as to 

 whether cruelty has been practised. There is no 

 doubt but that a keen sense of the humanities will 

 always influence magistrates and jurymen to hold 

 sharply responsible any wilful or wanton violation of 

 the law under the name of ' vivisection.' ' 

 Other legal authority has been mentioned in the opposite 

 direction, but surely we are not to be governed in all parts 

 of this case by the counsel's interpretation, first, of the bill, 

 and then of the English law as applied to our Common- 

 wealth, before it has ever been tried. 



The ultimate aim of all this agitation is, as has been tes- 

 tified here, the complete abolition of experimentation upon 

 animals, and we have yet to hear the first scientific author- 

 ity quoted in favor of such a measure. 



AS TO THE OPENING OF COUNSEL FOR THE BILL 



Almost at the very beginning the inconsistency of the 

 petitioners was made manifest. Counsel conceded in his 

 opening remarks, that the practice of animal experimenta- 

 tion should be allowed under restriction, and that this was 

 the opinion of by far the larger part of those persons 

 who think about the matter ; and then proceeded to place 

 upon the stand as a majority of his witnesses, persons who 

 acknowledged that they hoped that the proposed bill was 

 only a step towards the complete abolition of the proce- 

 dure, or at least that they were opposed to it upon moral 

 grounds. 



Counsel went on to present the names of some distin- 

 guished persons who were in favor of the bill, but from 

 what we have heard here and elsewhere it is perfectly justi- 

 fiable to assume, that of those who do not go so far as to 

 wish to do away with the practice entirely, at any rate 



