HAROLD C. ERNST 137 



tionof the clause counsel has admitted that the real opinion 

 is all the other way. 



Counsel further " assumed " that there was no claim 

 that morphia is an anesthetic! It appears necessary to 

 state a simple fact that is known by many persons not 

 medical men --that an anesthetic is "a substance that 

 produces anesthesia," and that " anesthesia is the con- 

 dition of insensibility to pain " ! If morphia is not an 

 anesthetic, what sense is there in the directions given for 

 treating an overdose of opium (or morphia), such as " shak- 

 ing, forcing to vt?fik, flagellations, or the electric brush, to 

 get the arousing effects of action and pain "?--and those 

 of us who have seen cases of morphia poisoning know that 

 the sensibility to pain can only be aroused by vigorous 

 applications of these methods. If morphia is not an 

 anesthetic, what was the reason for the taking of an over- 

 dose, as in the case related in Sunday's papers (the 

 " Sunday Herald," Boston, March 24, 1901), where the 

 individual " could not endure the pain which carbuncles 

 gave him," took the morphia to drive the pain away, and 

 required five hours' hard work on the part of the attending 

 physicians to revive him sufficiently to consider that he 

 might recover? 



Counsel stated that the burden of proof upon the peti- 

 tioners would be to show : 



1. That vivisection is practised. Granted; no one has 

 denied, or would attempt to deny that vivisection mean- 

 ing animal experimentation is practised within the bounds 

 of this Commonwealth. 



2. That the practice is abused. Denied ; no evidence 

 whatever, except hearsay, has been brought forward and 

 it is furthermore to be noted that no evidence whatever 

 was offered by any person occupying a teaching position, 

 and for that reason in a position to know. On the other 

 hand the evidence of seventeen teachers and workers in 



