1]2 
EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
Commission, after four years’ attention to the subject, has 
not yet sent in its final report.” 
These observations of the Annales appear to have produced a 
reply from the secretary of the society ; for, in a subsequent 
number of the journal, we read that c ‘ inoculation by Dr. Wil- 
lems has nearly run its race. Facts are insensibly and slowly 
drawing it towards its destiny ; but the central Society of 
Agriculture, in the person of its Secretary, goes faster than 
facts. He has told us, in answer to our remarks, that 
“ inoculation is a question already decided, its efficacy is ac- 
knowledged, its value is immense , and that those who doubt it 
must either do so from ignorance or jealousy” Truly, 66 a friend 
in need is a friend indeed.” 
Although coming from an agricultural society, and 
from one not of our country, we nevertheless feel bound, 
for the important interests which are at stake, to enter 
our protest against such statements as these. It is need- 
less that we should again repeat, that the experiments which 
have been undertaken here, as well as in every other country, 
to show the identity of Dr. Willems’ system with true in- 
oculation, have not only failed to do this, but have proved the 
very opposite. Every fundamental law of thus propagating 
disease, is violated by his boasted discovery. 
Woe to science, if we are to go back to the days 
of cutting cows’ tails, and rubbing in pepper and salt, 
to cure paralysis of the hind extremities, for, in truth, we do 
thus retrograde, if so be we give support to or countenance 
the making of deep incisions into this part of the organism 
of bovine animals, for the purpose of introducing therein 
some of the serum of the blood effused from a diseased lung, 
so as to give them immunity from an attack of a fatal pul- 
monic epizootic. Let us hope that we shall hear no more of 
such quackery, nor of “ its efficacy” or “ value.” 
