VIVISECTION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 175 



which has been introduced, at the instance of Mr. Bergh, at the last 

 three sessions of the Legislature : 



Section 1. Every person who shall perform, or cause to be performed, or 

 assist in performing, in or upon any living animal, an act of vivisection, shall be 

 guilty of a misdemeanor. 



Sec 2. The term vivisection used in this act shall include every investi- 

 gation, experiment, or demonstration, producing, or of a nature to produce, 

 pain or disease in any living animal, including the cutting, wounding, or poison- 

 ing thereof; except when the same is for the purpose of curing or alleviating 

 some physical suffering or disease in such living animal, or in order to deprive it 

 of life when incurable. 



Whether or not this law would, or is designed to, interfere with 

 the slaughtering of animals for food, or with the extermination of 

 pests, or even with the drowning or suffocation of impounded dogs 

 under the supervision of Mr. Bergh's Society, does not especially con- 

 cern physiologists ; but the points indicated by the italicized words 

 are worthy of consideration. In the law of 1867, the words needlessly 

 and properly are used. In the absence of specification as to who shall 

 determine what is needless or proper, would not the decision rest with 

 the administrators and executors of the law ? If so, might not the 

 first section be so interpreted as to permit any amount of pain as 

 " needful " for scientific purposes ? Other magistrates and police, on 

 the contrary, might deny the "propriety" of any experiment upon 

 living creatures, and thus interdict everything of the kind under the 

 tenth and apparently permissive section. The tenth section expressly 

 restricts even " properly conducted experiments " to medical colleges 

 and universities. Pending the elimination of this impediment to the 

 advancement and diffusion of physiological knowledge by private in- 

 dividuals and by the teachers in the normal and other schools, it is to 

 be hoped that the clause may be interpreted as liberally as are the 

 Sunday laws of the " New Penal Code." The peroration of Mr. Bergh's 

 vivisection address puts the following words into the mouth of a " vic- 

 tim " : " If my life be necessary to you, take it." The most natural 

 interpretation of this sentence is that, in the mind of its author, the 

 advancement or dissemination of human knowledge is sufficient justifi- 

 cation for putting an animal to death. But his proposed law permits 

 no cutting, wounding, or poisoning excepting for the sake of the 

 animal itself. What are we to understand upon this fundamental 

 question ? * 



Respecting the last section of the law of 1867, Mr. Bergh says, 



* On the 23d of December, 1882, I addressed Mr. Bergh a letter asking whether his 

 bill is designed to prohibit the following operations : confining the animal with cords or 

 bandages ; subcutaneous injection of curare ; killing by pithing ; experimenting under 

 anaesthetics, the subject being killed before revival ; experimenting under anaesthetics, 

 the animal being allowed to revive, and to endure the healing of clean incisions. Not. 

 withstanding a later request for attention, no reply has been received. 



