EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
405 
Many years ago, at the commencement of our journalistic career, 
a very true friend to us and to our Journal — a surgeon in prac- 
tice of some experience in matters of the kind — was consulted 
as to the most politic or fairest course to pursue in such a 
dilemma; and his advice ran thus : — “ There are descriptions of 
papers which the editor does perfectly right not to admit without 
real signatures, such as cases of cures performed, the effects of 
the exhibition of powerful remedies, and facts of real import- 
ance. But papers on scientific subjects might not be impro- 
perly admitted, although anonymous. Many gentlemen may 
write on scientific subjects connected with the veterinary 
art who may not choose to be known. They must leave their 
papers to the good sense and discretion of the editor to insert 
or not. If they are inserted, the parties feel gratified ; if 
they are not, they feel no chagrin, since they are not known. 
After all, however, every editor must lay down rules for his 
own guidance, and not suffer himself to be diverted from his 
purpose without very good reasons. And he must assume the 
privilege of omitting or altering any passage in the communica- 
tions sent him that may be ungrammatically or obscurely con- 
structed, for which the writers ought to be, and, I believe, 
are in general, thankful.” This advice, given in the true spirit 
of friendship, of a gentleman wishing well towards the cause in 
which we had engaged, we have, if not to the letter, at least in 
the main, acted up to. It is, we repeat, on occasions, a difficult 
matter for us, in our position, to decide between what we owe 
to the public and what we owe to our Journal. Our desire is 
to give no offence; our policy, to give as little as possible. 
In respect to the subject which has this month brought us 
rather an unusual supply of “correspondence,” viz. the Status or 
Respectability of the Veterinary Profession, our own opinion 
is, that, if we are to proceed in the matter to the extent our 
correspondent in the June Number would seem inclined to push 
us, we should, with the public, rather “ befoul our own nests” 
than do ourselves any service thereby. That ungentlemanly 
and dishonest practices of the kind mentioned by “a Veterinary 
Surgeon” do exist, not in our profession only, but in others as 
well, and especially among tradesmen, whose businesses lay 
among opulent and noble families, we are afraid is too notorious 
