104 
MR. CLARK IN REPLY 
Mr. Charles Clark in reply to Mr. Mayer. 
Sir, — I n the remarks I have to make on your letter in the last 
September number of The VETERINARIAN, I shall endeavour 
(particularly after the vexatious delay which has occurred) to be 
as concise as possible. I am sorry that yourself and the blank 
meeting of veterinary surgeons should be placed in so awkward a 
situation as that paper represents you to be. Your assertion seems 
almost incredible, that so many talented gentlemen could have 
perused The Veterinarian for months previously, have seen 
therein a little obnoxious note at the bottom of a page, have con- 
vened a meeting, and passed resolutions to call the original author 
of the said note to an account, and yet should have entirely over- 
looked the fact, that the whole of the correspondence and matter to 
which this note referred was but a verbatim copy from the Lancet 
medical journal, of 1829. 
The name of the Lancet appears in nearly every page of the 
articles copied from it into The VETERINARIAN, and is even very 
conspicuous in that page to which the said note is appended; and 
Mr. Morgan also, in his introductory letter to the correspond- 
ence, at page 94, observes, “ refer to the Lancets of February, 
March, and May 1829 and adds, “ I have sent a copy of these 
letters, bound, for the library of the Association.” Now, if there 
are really more than one pair of eyes engaged in this business, 
how could you all have avoided seeing something of this circum- 
stance, at which you now express “ ignorance and surprise 7” 
The first part of the controversy was republished by the instigation 
and desire of Mr. Morgan himself ; an interval of a month elapsed, 
and finding that my final letter to Mr. M. was withheld, I did not 
re-write a single line of it, but purchased the proper back number 
of the Lancet and enclosed it to the Editor of The VETERINA- 
RIAN, requesting that, as the subject had been re-opened, it might 
be fairly concluded. Had I again -written, or even read the article, 
it is not unlikely I might have omitted the said note, not from any 
doubt of substantiating its allegations, but because my leisure for 
such a controversy is less than it was ten years ago. But then it 
would not have been a correct copy from the printed text of 1829, 
and, therefore, liable to misrepresentation; nor do I, on fair terms, 
shun the encounter. No ; but every unprejudiced reader will see, 
that it is yourselves, gentlemen, who, by an inconceivable but very 
convenient blindness to the palpable point I have just explained, 
are seeking to pass aside the question on finding that it meets a 
ready response. You would deprive me of my resources — disarm 
me of every weapon that was available — forbid a reference to 
every “ book , pamphlet, and even letter, ” and, to prove my asser- 
tion in 1829, you wish to limit me to facts deduced from Pro- 
