24 (» DEGRADED STATE OF THE VETERINARY PRESS. 
quid non” that you will, yea that a licence is therein positively 
granted for so doing, I have ventured at once, without any apo- 
logy, to intrude upon its pages. The purport of these remarks 
refers to the great and increasing circulation of spurious editions 
of works on farriery or veterinary medicine. 
I have had, within the last few months, come under my im- 
mediate notice, not less than six or seven treatises of that kind, 
containing verbatim copies of other persons’ works, the makers 
of which, however, by the by, have not forgotten to give a high- 
sounding, taking title to each of them ; to prefix a fictitious 
author’s name in the title-page ; to draw up a prettily worded 
preface or introduction; and, indeed, in some cases to spin out 
a long yarn of fulsome panegyric as to the writer’s professional 
pedigree, education, experience, &c. Now', if this is not an in- 
famous system of piracy, I don’t know the meaning of terms. 
I can assure you, Mr. Editor, that I can see no fun in paying 
for the same matter four or five times over, and thereby become 
the unprepared dupe of such crafty, money-making impostors. 
If ever the old adage of “ The buyer has need of a hundred 
eyes” was more applicable at one time than another, it is now ; 
for the press is at this time actually teeming with spurious ve- 
terinary works. 
In all this we perceive the craft and roguery of the parties 
publishing them. There is craft, inasmuch as those cunning 
gentlemen (whoever they are) take care not to title their publi- 
cations thus : viz. u Compilations from such and such authors;” 
No ! No ! This would never do, — this would frustrate their pur- 
pose and blight all their schemes at once, by restricting their 
sale, and consequently curtailing the amount of their profits. 
In short, this would tell the world what they meant. There is 
roguery, inasmuch as they are seizing what is not their own, 
and, indirectly at least, taking away the lawful right of the 
legitimate author, out of whose writings they have impudently 
collected their compilations, and made them pass for genuine. 
And how much better, I would ask, is this than knavery as it 
regards the public ? They are, by means of this nefarious system 
of hoodwinking the public eye, literally making the purchaser 
again pay for a book he has already bought. Has any man a 
right to seize the property of another, as it issues from the press, 
and grasp it as his own, under an altered, modified form, by 
giving it a new name, &c. &c. ; and thus rob the legitimate 
author of his due, with the specious plea of its being public 
property ? Why, surely, this must be the most shameless insult 
upon common sense, the most daring outrage upon the common 
honesty of mankind. 
