EXPANSION of the foot. 
205 
the men with the best talents and reflections that have gone before 
us within the last hundred years, have, to use an oriental saying, 
“ been eating dirt” — in other words, have been uttering that which 
we might and ought to have known was false : and if it was so 
easy to discover truth, as Mr. Gloag seems to have imagined it is, 
truly, indeed, should w r e have “ eaten dirt,” and to a considerable 
extent, too. 
Let us examine upon what ground this serious charge is brought 
against us, and also let us go a step further and examine the per 
contra. In the May Number of The VETERINARIAN, a letter, 
accompanying a statement of certain experiments on the horse’s 
foot, appears, and is followed by the author’s description of them. 
A second paper appears in June, and a third in July, with the 
conclusions or deductions drawn from these experiments. 
The number of these experiments is tw’enty-four ; of these thir- 
teen were performed on the foot of the living animal ; the other 
eleven were — proh pudor — performed on dead feet removed from 
the animal, and squeezed in a vice. And upon such evidence as 
this we are asked to give up our opinions — our creed — the very 
keystone of our knowledge of the foot, and upon which we can 
alone keep the foot in a state that shall render the animal capable 
of the exertion we require from him. 
In the October Number I reply to this farrago of pseudo-experi- 
ments, and distinctly, and without any circumlocution, deny the 
correctness of the conclusions attempted to be arrived at. Nay, 
further, I go a step beyond what the logicians require in an argu- 
ment : I give a reason upon which I founded each denial, except 
in one case, which I dismissed curtly, or I must have so severely 
handled it, that its public appearance would be a source of great 
regret. Each statement of mine I was prepared to support; but 
to my exceeding surprise, instead of a reply, no notice has been 
taken, and by consequence judgment goes by default, and the sub- 
ject ought to have dropped. But, judge of the surprise that must 
be excited when the last Number of your Journal is perused, at 
the cool assurance with which Mr. Gloag comes forward in reply 
to Mr Reeve, and the manner in which he treats that gentleman, 
who, by the way, for a young man, has written a very excellent 
article, as clear as Mr. Gloag’s is obscure ; vet the latter has 
charged the former with his own errors. 
But there is an episode in this affair which I shall now lay 
before your readers, and shew the matter in another light. In- 
stead of replying to me publicly, as Mr. Gloag was bound to do, 
if at all, he wrote to me privately , from which I will make a short 
extract [if Mr. G. wishes it, I will publish his letter and my reply], 
“ At first I thought to have replied to you, but I could not have 
