EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
543 
him to an issue of some sort that might turn out of service to 
those most concerned — the members of the agricultural com- 
munity; caring little, for his own part, which way the investi- 
gation led him, so long as it conducted him to a safe and 
truthful conclusion. He had before him, to light him on his 
road — First, the Dutch Commission, who reported that ani- 
mals “ w 7 ho have once had the pulmonary disease and been 
cured, never, or at least rarely, take the disease a second 
time ;” and, farther, that “ inoculation possesses the power, at 
least temporarily , of preventing infection / 5 though it be not 
known for how long; concluding with a recommendation 
that inoculation be adopted “ in every case where pulmonary* 
disease has broken out in a herd of cattle.” Secondly, Mr* 
Simonds had the report of the Belgian Commissioners — 
one wdiich appeared most painstaking and elaborate — by 
which he was instructed, that inoculation with the matter of 
exudative pleuro-pneumonia “is not a certain preservative 
against the malady;” and that “inoculation gives rise to the 
same phenomena, whether the animal may or may not have 
had pleuro-pneumonia; and that the two affections may 
exist together in the same individual.” 
The Prussian Government, who had, at the time of the 
publication of Mr. Simonds 5 paper, not received their report 
from Dr. Ulrich, their agent in the affair, but which has 
since reached us through the French “ Recueil / 5 and is from 
that extracted into our present number, have made it known, 
through the Dr., that the results which have come to his 
knowledge in the course of his inquiry, are not of that cha- 
racter which appear to him to warrant him in giving a definite 
opinion on the value of inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia. — 
“ Tons ces resultats 3 bases sur V ensemble des inoculations qui sont 
parvenus a la connaissance de M. Ulrich , ne lui paraissant pas 
encore de nature a lui permettre de se prononcer d’une maniere 
definitive sur la valenr de V inoculation de la peripneumonie , fyc” 
The French Commission, holding its report still in abey- 
ance, we have no right to anticipate it by any surmises of 
our own as to which w 7 ay it is likely to turn. We shall 
only here remark that, on the part of their veterinary organ, 
the e Recueil/ there has as yet been manifested no sign of 
