CORRESPONDENCE. 
53 
CONTINUATION OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE EDITOR 
AND MR. C. CLARK. 
Mr. C. Clark has addressed to me another letter, received after the previous 
correspondence was all printed ; he demands that that also shall appear, if any is 
published. He having alluded to my letter to Mr. Bracy Clark, I am compelled to 
publish that also: but the reader shall not be deprived of one inch of The Vete- 
rinarian: this is all thrown in, and I do implore his pardon for the tax laid on his 
patience by the addition of so much extraneous matter. I will not make a single 
comment on these addenda. — Y. 
19, Giltspur Street, 
December 22d, 1836. 
Received in the afternoon of the 23d. 
Sir, — I received your very testy letter of the 19th inst., but have been too much en- 
gaged to answer it earlier. Having always entertained the same contemptuous sen- 
timents respecting the general politics of The Veterinarian, and been accustomed 
to consider that you were aware of my opinion, I was at some loss to understand why 
you should wince so much at the expression of it. But on reflecting that your Journal 
has now been several years without rivalry or opposition of any kind, and uncorrected 
by criticism, it seems not so wonderful that your irritability should be excited now an 
opponent has taken the field ; and I therefore attribute it to general annoyance, and 
not to my slight remarks in particular. 
Under this nervous state of feeling you are inflicting correspondence upon us, and 
it seems intended to bestow it also on the readers of your periodical. I find that Mr. 
Bracy Clark has received by the same post that conveyed my last to you, another 
most peremptory note, “ requiring to be informed, &c.;” and also a long epistle of 
an entirely different character. If I respond to you this time, it is for the purpose of 
noticing several singular assumptions in your letter, which are calculated to mislead. 
What is meant by asserting that you “ find in the ‘ Centaur ’ a third letter from Mr. 
Bracy Clark ?” He has not written or sent to that paper a single letter, unless you so 
denominate the article on “ Arteriotomy,” in the last number. 
I cannot answer as to any supposition or belief of the editor of the “ Centaur,” re- 
lative to my letter signed ‘‘Clemens,” if he misjudged as well as yourself, never 
having seen my handwriting before : it in no respect altered the fact. You next as- 
sume, that I retract my language, which is not true; I simply disavow personal allu- 
sion to any one of the four declared editors of The Veterinarian, and distinctly 
state, that I have no desire to disclaim it as applied to the general conduct of the 
Journal. Again, I am accused of imputing motives to you and your colleagues, 
which is wrong; 1 may, perhaps, guess at motives, but the assertions I made in that 
jctter have reference only to the facts of the case. The next statement, that The Ve- 
terinarian is your sole property, will be something new, I imagine, to many of its 
readers, as it has been tome: seeing the names of three other professional gentlemen 
preceding your’s on its cover, and considering certain circumstances which have be- 
fallen to you since its commencement, I had no reason to “ know this full well.” I 
