164 ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 



7 or being in such a place refuses to disclose his 



8 true name and residence to any such agent, or 



9 violates any other provision of this act, shall be 

 10 punished by fine not exceeding three hundred 

 n dollars. 



If the preceding sections of the law be enacted, this 

 one is immaterial, for the amount of the punishment 

 makes very little difference. 



\Ve object to the threat of punishment as embodied in 

 the law itself. 



We believe that in many instances, as has certainly been 

 the case in some, supporters of restrictive legislation in 

 this direction do so in the belief that there is no restriction 

 already existing. 



This we assert is not the case, and we cannot consent to 

 any further legislation until that now on the statute books 

 has been tried and found ineffective. 



In such event, we will be found as active in supporting 

 proper restrictive measures as we are now in opposing 

 such legislation as this before you. 



We do not believe in unrestricted or cruel experimenta- 

 tion upon animals made by any one who may desire, but 

 we do most emphatically believe in the freedom of re- 

 search and the freedom of teaching. 



AS TO THE TESTIMONY AGAINST THE BILL 



Counsel for the petitioners claimed that the remon- 

 strants offered cumulative testimony. If he meant that 

 it was overwhelming testimony it was well; if he meant 

 that i<_ was unnecessary, let us see how that could be. 



The statement was made that the petitioners had to 

 fight an oligarchy a medical oligarchy. 



