252 PROFESSOR RUTHERFORD ON THE 
we are perfectly willing to admit that it is possible that the human liver may 
be more or less susceptible than the liver of the dog to the influence of various 
substances, but we maintain that up to this time there is really no proven 
discord between our results and those arrived at by observations on man. 
All our experiments have had reference to the secretion and not the expulsion 
of bile. For the purpose of arriving at definite knowledge, we intentionally—in 
the manner described at the outset of these experiments—threw out of action 
the bzle-expelling mechanism, in order that we might have to deal with the bz/e- 
secreting apparatus only. We do not profess to have ascertained anything 
regarding the action of any drug on the bile-expelling mechanism. 
The clinical observer has supplied most valuable information regarding the 
power of various substances to increase the amount of bile in the dejections. 
He observes dejections of a clay colour, he gives five grains of calomel, and 
further observes that in some cases the dejections thereafter assume their 
natural appearance. He cannot be certain of the manner in which this result 
is brought about. For anything he knows, it might be occasioned (1) by stimu- 
lation of the hepatic secreting apparatus; or (2) by stimulation of the muscular 
fibres of the gall-bladder and larger bile-ducts—to wit—the bile-expelling 
apparatus; or (3) by removing a catarrhal or congested state of the orifice of 
the common bile-duct, or of the general extent of the larger bile-ducts; or (4) 
by removing from the intestine substances which had been passing therefrom 
into the portal vein and depressing the action of the hepatic cells; or (5) by 
stimulating the intestinal glands, and thus producing drainage of the portal 
system, whereby the “loaded” liver might possibly be relieved. Yet notwith- 
standing the inability of clinical observers to unravel this complicated web, and 
supply us with any definite statement, one of them* has felt inclined to think 
the results arrived at by BENNETT’s Committee of no value, because they proved 
by direct experiment that calomel does not in the dog stimulate the hepatic 
secreting apparatus. 
Seeing that calomel stimulates the intestinal glands in the dog as in man; 
seeing that mercury produces salivation, ulceration of gums, and other charac- 
teristic phenomena in the dog as in man, the obvious inference is that the 
reputed cholagogue action of calomel in the human subject is probably not 
owing to stimulation of the bile-secreting apparatus. And why should we, in 
the face of our experiments, believe the opposite until the clinical observer 
substitutes—for vague conjecture—definite proof of that opposite, by experi- 
menting in a case of biliary fistula in the human subject, when it happens that 
no bile enters the intestine, and where the amount secreted may be measured 
by collecting it as it flows from the fistula. 
* Vide Dr Moxon, “ Hunterian Oration,” 1877, “ Medical Press and Circular,” March 1877. 
