138 ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION 



biology, physiology, and allied branches was brought 

 forward to support the denial. 



3. That there is a widespread doubt as to the usefulness 

 to mankind of animal experimentation. Denied, so far 

 as expert opinion goes. There is no such widespread 

 doubt in the minds of persons who have given any thought 

 or investigation to the matter. The petitioners failed 

 entirely to present the opinion of more than one well-known 

 person to support this contention (Lawson Tait). Those 

 who doubt its usefulness would agree with the 



4th proposition that the practice is morally wrong, 

 and should be done away with entirely. If the practice is 

 morally wrong, this must rest upon the assertion that it 

 is morally wrong to interfere in any way with the happi- 

 ness of the lower animals, for their own sake or for the 

 sake of man. If this be true, why attack the least (so far 

 as numbers are concerned) of all the wrongs inflicted by 

 man upon the lower animals? Why allow the slaughter 

 daily going on for food or purposes of personal decoration 

 -the mutilations for the sake of fashion or fancy, that 

 count in the thousands what animal experimentation counts 

 in the hundreds? Certainly evidence from skilled moralists 

 has been presented here to show that it is not morally 

 wrong. (Bishop Lawrence, Dean Hodges, Dr. De Nor- 

 mandie, and Rev. Mr. Magrath.) 



5. The fifth proposition - -begging the question of the 

 morality of the procedure asserted that, if the practice 

 of animal experimentation is to be tolerated, it should be 

 regulated by law. Granted; but it is regulated, by the 

 general laws governing cruelty to animals, and by the 

 specific law prohibiting vivisection in schools. The laws 

 in regard to cruelty to animals cover the case fully, as has 

 been shown the committee, by legal opinion, and as can 

 be further shown if necessary. Counsel's guess at what 

 the courts would do cannot be accepted ; more especially 



