474 INOCULATION FOR PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN CATTLE. 
occurred in his fathers stall es. Having made all these con- 
cessions, we have still fifty-five animals in which inoculation 
has failed to prevent the invasion of exudative Pleuro- 
pneumonia. The facts observed at Niony Maisieres, a focus 
of the epizootic, are of great importance.”* 
We w ill first observe, w ith regard to this accusation, that 
rumours of it had reached us some w eeks since, w hich, how- 
ever, we refrained from taking any notice of at that time, not 
believing it possible that any person would have had the 
temerity to publish such an incorrect version of the facts of 
the case. Without multiplication of w ords, we will at once 
say, and we challenge proof being produced to the contrary, 
that we neither suggested the experiment, selected the material, 
nor performed the operation. That tw o cows w 7 ere inoculated 
on the 1st of September, with some viscid serum obtained 
from deep incisions made in the tail of a cow, to relieve the 
inflammation which resulted from her previous inoculation, 
and that w 7 e w 7 ere present and made notes of these cases, is 
perfectly true. These inoculations were the very first we 
witnessed, and were done ly 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 7 has it happened, that 
such a great discrepancy as that which exists in the state- 
ments 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 
narrative w r hich are irreconcilable. We have the statement 
of the Doctor that in tw o days from the inoculation “ the 
small w r ounds 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 tail” — w 7 hich 
they preserve, together with a portion of the lung, to prove, 
firstly , that the animal had been inoculated, and, secondly , 
that it died w ith Pleuro-pneumonia. “ Two large cicatrices ,” 
and no result from the inoculation : — how can this be ex- 
plained? We, from our intimate knowledge of this parti- 
cular case, can say that an ulcer formed ly the side of the place 
of inoculation 3 and produced the second cicatrix. 
To pass to the other case. The inference which Dr. 
Willems wishes to be draw 7 n from the speedy suppuration of 
* The italics in the forgoing extract are our own. 
