VETERINARY SURGEONS. 163 



This, to our knowledge is not only true of some of tliem 

 in tlieir own country, but of this also, and we know of but 

 few of them who ever brought credit upon their alma 

 mater ^ the profession, or M. R. C. V. S. How is it that 

 their proficiency in theory is so seldom borne out by facts, 

 when laid before our courts of justice and Philadelphia 

 lawyers, in cases of veterinary medical jurisprudence ? 



We would not have placed the blame of almost universal 

 inefficiency to any particular school, were we not exactly 

 informed of it by our distinguished friend and surgeon 

 Professor Samuel D. Gross, M. D., of the Jefferson Medical 

 College of Philadelphia, who in accordance with the 

 expressed wish of the " x\merican Medical Association," 

 as a committee on veterinary colleges in the United States, 

 visited several like institutions in England and France, 

 during his late tour abroad. 



In confirmation, independent of our experience as to the 

 general inefficiency of some of the graduates from this 

 college, we will merely refer to the controversy that arose 

 on contraction of the horse's foot, between Robert Bonner, 

 Esq., of New York, and Veterinary Professor John 

 Gamgee, of London. 



The unsatisfactory result of the special examination as to 

 the cause and nature of the Texan cattle disease certainly 

 adds nothing to its credit. 



The Scotch or Edinburgh graduates who, although fully 

 entitled to the appellation of M. R. C. V. S., by the sign 

 manual of 1858, forming the law of affiliation of all the 



