308 



THE FARMEUS' CABINET. 



VOL. I. 



to make somo nmGndnients in his chnllenge, 

 as he calls it; lie says " such ii svastinjr oftlie 

 pith (Joes not take place." How does Obser- 

 ver know this coniident assertion to be a fact ; 

 he rnay know ot piths that do exist, butot'the 

 piths which he Has never seen, he knows 

 nothino;. Knowledge of the absence of things 

 is a superhuman attiibute. All that a man 

 knows, is limited to tlie sphere of his obser- 

 vation ; consequently of non-existences he is 

 tolaly ignorant ; therefore, the challenge 

 refates itself. 



But independent of this loose manner, in 

 which his challenge is worded, I choose not 

 to accept it; first, because 1 do not know 

 that I can easily find a hollow horn; and 

 secondly, I desire to avoid controversy : it 

 produces excitement, and that kind ot feeling 

 often induces people to love their own opin- 

 ions better than the truth, or reasonableness 

 of the case. 



My former remarks in the Cabinet, grew 

 out of Observer's novel manner of treating 

 the subject. He says in page 211, "If inflam- 

 mation assumes a more violent form, and ex- 

 tends to the bones, producing boney ulcera- 

 tion, or caries, the discharge will be darker 

 colored, and highly offensive, constituting 

 putrid horn." In tlio same essay, page 213, 

 he says "that hollow horn, or a disease at- 

 tended with wasting of the bony pith of the 

 horn, has no existence in nature." This 

 se"jms like admitting the fact, and then deny- 

 ing it; yet in his reply we find reiterated the 

 same apparent contradictions; we read in 

 pago 277, that " the horn is liable to caries 

 in common, with all other bony structures;" 

 hut again he says, "I do not admit the fact 

 of this bony ulceration, because I have never 

 .seen it do so." Here Observer admits the 

 liability, but denies the possibility; that is, 

 l!ie horn may be iiollow, but never is hollow , 

 " the bony pith is liable to caries, to dis- 

 charge and waste away ;" but the " wasting 

 of the bony ])ith of the horn, has no existence 

 in nature." This is whatl consider the "pith 

 of the controversy." Does Observer believe 

 this liable case is a possible one; "yea or 

 nay!" 



1 have since my last communication, dis- 

 sected a considerable number of horns, all 

 from cattle said to have died of hollow horn; 

 but 1 have not found any satisfactory evidence 

 of waste or decay, in the pith or bone of any 

 of them. I am therefore unable to send Ob- 

 server even "one hollow horn." As to the 

 oxistence of the disease, I have found no rea- 

 son to change my opinion ; I consider the 

 bony pith of " the horn, is liable to caries in 

 common with all other bony structures," and 

 if [ believe a thing is liable to happen, I think 

 it reasonable to believe it sometimes does 

 happen. I do not say it is a disease that fre- 



quently occurs ; I think it probably docs not ; 

 but to say that "such a wasting of the pith 

 has no existence in nature," is in my opin- 

 ion assuming a position that has no existence 

 in reason, m analogy, nor in the natural order 

 of things. 



The bones of all animals are liable to dis- 

 ease ; there is not a particle of oganiscd 

 matter, bone, muscle or sinew, but what ia 

 subject to suppuration, decay, waste, and the 

 external parts to exfoliation"! and why ehould 

 the pith of the horn be an exception ? 



If Observer is right, then is the bone of the 

 horn unlike all other bones; and what reason 

 have we to believe this ! no reason only that 

 its very spongy substance, and exposed situa- 

 tion, renders it more vulnerable and of course 

 more liable to disease, which I apprehend is 

 the fact. 



1 promised to examine the horns of cattle 

 reported to have died of the hollow horn ; I 

 have done so, and have found none that were 

 " wasted away ;" but how many bones would 

 we have to examine, before we could find a 

 rotten one, or one that had " wasted away," 

 and yet I presume Observer knows that such 

 a disease exists. Suppose I were to .say to 

 Observer, that there is something wrong in 

 the generally received opinion of iones being 

 liable to waste and decay ; that this is a part 

 of the animal, that is never affected by the 

 diseases, incident to organized beings; would 

 he not say to methat this opinion was founded 

 upon fact, that the testimony was ample to 

 satisfy any unprejudiced mind; would he not 

 refer me to authentic history of diseased 

 bones; and would be not be surprised if I 

 refused to "admit the fact of this bony ulcera- 

 tion, becau.se I had never seen them do so." 1 

 have never seen the cities of London, Paris, or 

 Amsterdam, yet I feel no hesitation in admit- 

 ting ihe fact of their existence. I have never 

 seen a horn in which I coiild say the pith had 

 wasted away, during the life of the animal, 

 but still I believe it has an " existence in 

 nature." 



I think there is reason to believe that the 

 horns of cattle, become chilled in extreme 

 cold weather ; and from this cau.«e I appre- 

 hend the " corrupted horn, putrid horn, rot- 

 ten," and consequently hollow horn is pro- 

 duced. There is no doubt, but the pith of 

 the horn wastes away sooner after the death 

 of the animal, than any other bone; on 

 examination, I have found a number of piths 

 decayed and rotten, toward the point, and the 

 hone at the root of the horn, perfectly sound. 

 This fact favors the opinion that the pith is 

 more frequently tlie seat of disease, than any 

 other bone ; it shows that the pith of the horn 

 has less power than other bones, to resist the 

 general decomposition of organised bodies; 

 and consequently more liable to waste and 



