136 ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 



fully covered suc/t cases and fnrtlicr legislation would be 

 superfluous. The counsel for the petitioners has thus put 

 himself on record to the effect that the testimony intro- 

 duced in regard to Dr. Wentworth even if it was as it 

 was static/-- was valueless, since such practices, if carried 

 on, were already covered by statute. 



That is precisely what we believe in this matter ; and 

 at the same time I feel sure that I am justified in making 

 the above statement in regard to the experiments, solely 

 because they have now been brought up twice by the 

 petitioners for this sort of legislation, and in each instance 

 by the same persons. 



Counsel also stated that Bill 856 contained section 2, 

 omitted in Bill 855,-- exempting all inoculation experi- 

 ments from Act 856. Inoculation experiments were 

 specifically exempted, said counsel, for the reason that 

 last year the stongest opposition to the bill then proposed 

 was that it would affect and stop such experiments, and 

 particularly the preparation of diphtheria antitoxin. He 

 thought a bill stood more chance of being accepted which 

 exempted such experiments. 



Counsel thus admitted tacitly that the general opinion 

 that such experiments were useful and valuable was so 

 strong as not to be successfully combated. He thus tacitly 

 admitted against the contention of his own witnesses 

 that there is a general consensus of opinion in the commu- 

 nity and among educated men: I. That such vivisec- 

 tional experiments are of value ; 2. That we have the 

 moral right to experiment on animals. 



Both of these points his own witnesses (particularly Dr. 

 Hastings, Mrs. Ward, and Mr. Hill) have been at special 

 pains to controvert. 



All evidence introduced by petitioners to show that the 

 consensus of opinion among medical men is against such 

 practices thus falls to the ground, since by this introduc- 



