64 ON TIIF. INFFFICIF.NCY OF 



Now, Mr. Editor, if it ])o admitted, for aronmcnt 

 sake, that the weight of tlie animal in (jiiick motion 

 is siicli as to overcome tlic restraint of tliese eii::ht 

 opposing points, and that in the scuj)h'. (for 1 can 

 give it no other name) between superincnmbcnt 

 weight, force, and resistance, the joint of the shoe 

 does give a little, and concussion is moderated, let 

 lis consider the situation of the same hoof in the 

 shoe, while the animal is in a quiescent state, tied up 

 by the head in his stall twenty-two hours out of the 

 twenty-four, and we shall find this jointed shoe of 

 Mr. Bracy Clark's to be a fetter with a vengeance, 

 under the disguise of liberty. The weight of a 

 The joint at horsc alouc, unaccompanicd with action, is quite 



llie toeof the ' / _ ' * 



sh.).M.f no avail uncqual to the restraint of the nails, and conse- 



whilst tho httrsc * 



the\Si!f '" 4"c*^t,ly the joint at the toe of the shoe becomes a 

 nullity, leaving the heels exposed to severe partial 

 pressure, as with the common shoe. Contraction 

 of the foot being principally engendered in the 

 stable, this is the period of danger, although exertion 

 afterwards out of the stable is the exciting cause of 

 lameness; and thus it is that Mr. B. Clark's famous 

 joint-shoe, after several year's trial, has no^ proved 

 a " basis for the repose of the profession," as this 

 gentleman so triumphantly expressed himself. 



When the owner of a valuable horse is cononi- 

 tulating himself on the rest he alfords his pet in 

 the stable, he little thiidvs that his mistaken kind- 

 ness consigns his favourite to a canker-worm. 



