270 Inoculation for Pleuro-Pneumonia in Cattle. 



of a cow, to relieve the inflammation which resulted from her 

 previous inoculation, and that we were present and made notes 

 of these cases, is perfectly true. These inoculations were tJie very 

 first we witnessed, and were done by Dr. Willems to .show us the 

 method of operating. This fact is of itself almost sufficient to 

 negative the statement of MM. Willems, father and son, " that 

 one of the English professors inoculated the animals." The son 

 here named we understand not to be Dr. Willems, but his brother, 

 because, as will be observed, the Doctor gives a different version 

 of the affair. How has it happened, that such a great discre- 

 pancy as that which exists in the statements of the MM. Willems 

 and Dr. Willems, crept into the Report, if the simple truth had 

 only to be told ? 



Besides this there are various other discrepancies in the narra- 

 tive which are irreconcilable. We have the statement of the 

 Doctor that in two days from the inoculation " the small wounds 

 were suppurating in both animals;" while M. Willems sen. 

 says, in the first beast which died there were no effects produced ; 

 and the delegates of the Commission assert there were " two 

 large cicatrices on the taiV^ — which they preserve, together with 

 a portion of the lung, to prove, firstly., that the animal had been 

 inoculated, and, secondly, that it died with Pleuro-pneumonia. 

 "Two large cicatrices^'' and no result from the inoculation: — how 

 can this be explained ? We, from our intimate knowledge of this 

 particular case, can say that an ulcer formed hy the side of the 

 place of inoculation., and produced the second cicatrix. 



To pass to the other case. The inference which Dr. Willems 

 wishes to be drawn from the speedy suppuration of the small 

 wounds is that the beasts were not protected because not specific 

 but common action resulted from " the virulent matter — the pus^^ — 

 which was employed ; in other words, the inoculation was un- 

 successful. Opposed to this, first comes the statement of MM. 

 Vaes and Maris, that the animal bears the mark of a successful 

 operation ; and then the declaration of M. Willems sen., " that 

 this beast was successfully operated on by the same English vete- 

 rinary professor who inoculated the animal that was killed in 

 consequence of Pleuro-pneumonia." The Doctor virtually says 

 that both the animals were unprotected ; that neither was suc- 

 cessfully operated on. The father says " that one of them was 

 successfully inoculated, but the material used on both was bad ;" 

 and the delegates write, " two large cicatrices exist on the tail of 

 one of the animals.^ and the other bears the mark of a successful 

 inoculation.^^ 



If Dr. Willems knew, in September last, that these cows were 

 unprotected, how comes it that they were left in a focus of the 

 disease under such circumstances for three months daily exposed 



