60 
EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
be dependent upon the support of the veterinary profession. 
So long as the members thereof man our yards, our vessel is 
safe. We do our best for it ourselves, and our best friends 
have done their best for it ; and vve sincerely thank them for 
their co-exertions. When we do founder, it will not be their 
fault ; neither shall it be ours. 
Whenever an author may find it necessary or expedient to 
reply to the reviewer of, or commentator upon, his work, 
his motive for so doing is apt to be some feeling of dissatis- 
faction. If he be content with what is said about his produc- 
tion, seldom is any further notice taken of the matter. But, 
should difference of opinion, or any sense of umbrage in his 
breast, arise from the nature of the review, there appears then 
room or reason for reply ; thoui^h, so far from such reply being 
offspring of any ill feeling, it may simply originate in a desire 
to settle a point on which author and reviewer happen to 
differ so materially, as (the point in dispute being an important 
one,) for the sake of the science it has reference to, and the 
practice thereof, they ought, if possible, to be brought to some 
uniform and settled conclusion upon it. It is possible, it 
may strike some of our readers as somewhat strange, and 
irreconcileable w ith the rules of “ Cocker,” that an Editor’s 
work should undergo “review'” in his own Journal, and that 
the review be — as reviews usually are — anonymous, or all but 
anonymous : the saving clause being but the addendum of 
the foot-letter G., which some may misinterpret ; though 
others will not. To make use here of a vulgar saying, £f no 
one will dirty his own nest;” therefore, the natural inference 
of such a proceeding would seem to be, that the reviewer — 
who might, possibly, be construed to be the Editor himself - — 
of course w ould not brand the author with a “ bad name,” 
alias , enunciate aught but delectable things about his own book. 
In the present case, we shall not pay our readers so ill a 
compliment as to suppose they will not speedily discriminate 
between the styles of two writers which are by no means 
similar, to say nothing of the manifest spirit of candour and 
honesty with w hich one part of the work is denounced, while 
another part is commended ; and to add, less than nothing 
about the final appendage G. ; which really and in truth is the 
incipient letter of our reviewer’s name. 
Thus much premised, let us come at once to the point we 
are aiming at — to the bone of contention. And yet, before 
we disclose this, we feel ourselves in duty bound to offer our 
humble but sincere thanks to our reviewer, for what he has 
been pleased to say about our labours; but, above all, for 
