PUERPERAL FEVER. 
61 I 
thesis ; yet I had no evidence to prove that he was wrong, nor has 
he given any to convince me that he is right. 1 did not, how- 
ever, examine the brain with the other parts, as this was done 
(to make the proof complete and undeniable) by Professor Dick, 
and, strange to tell, there was not the slightest trace of disease 
to be seen in that organ. 
On the foregoing cases, cases that recovered by the treat- 
ment pursued, but more particularly from the post-mortem ap- 
pearances of the fourth, I take up my ground in denying that 
puerperal fever is a “ cerebral disease,” or one of the “ organic 
motor nerves.” If it were a “ cerebral disease,” why were there 
no traces of disease to be seen in the case last mentioned, these 
having been entirely confined to the viscera of the abdomen ? but 
if it be a disease of the “ organic motor nerves,” will Mr. Friend 
have the goodness to say how this can be found out by a post- 
mortem examination? 1 do not doubt Mr. Stewart when he says 
(see Veterinarian for February, page 79) that Mr. Gardiner 
informed him “ that, in examining the head of a cow which died 
of puerperal fever, he found extravasations of blood on several 
portions of the brain, and a large quantity in the lateral ven- 
tricles.” 
I admit that extravasations of blood may often be found on 
the brain; but do they not arise in consequence of inflammation 
extending to that organ from other parts wdiere the primary seat 
of such inflammation exists? But why signalize the brain in 
this case of puerperal fever, and leave the reader to guess in 
what state the other viscera (particularly the abdomen) were 
found? Was there no trace of inflammation in the uterus? 
Did none of the stomachs (especially the abomasum) present 
any appearance of disease? Were the small intestines not suffer- 
ers ? Were I to receive an answer in the negative to these ques- 
tions, I confess frankly I should lose the vantage ground which 
I occupy at present ; I should then have but a short distance to 
travel ere I embraced this strangely-new theory : but until I 
receive such an answer, if puerperal fever be really the disease of 
which the animal died, I shall firmly maintain that the brain is 
not primarily affected, but that it may become so ultimately from 
metastasis taking place. 
But supposing puerperal fever to be a “ cerebral disease,” does 
it necessarily follow that the “organic motor nerves” are also 
affected ? I most assuredly deny the assertion ; or supposing, 
with Mr. Friend, that it is really a disease of the “ motor 
nerves,” is the same ridiculous conclusion to be made, that the 
brain must share in the mischief? It appears to me that Mr. 
Friend confounds the brain with the nerves, and the nerves with 
