152 
LETTER FROM MR. STEWART. 
and the animal was free from pain; and in proportion as it in¬ 
creased in size, the spasms became more frequent and violent. 
A portion of the duodenum to which it was attached was 
considerably thickened, but not contracted in its circumference. 
There was not the least appearance of inflammation. 
Glasgow , Feb. 4, 1834. 
[From Mr. Stewart, disavowing the Advertisement of his Work .] 
Gentlemen, 
You have called upon me to disown the authorship of a scan¬ 
dalous advertisement, having reference to my Advice to Purchasers 
of Horses ; and although I cannot admire the peremptory man¬ 
ner in which you make the demand, I will nevertheless respond 
to it, so far as to state, that I had no hand whatever in concocting 
the article in question ; that I never saw it till printed; and that 
I then unhesitatingly condemned it as unfit for the public eye ; 
a tissue of falsehoods, and at variance with the contents of the 
book it referred to. Since that time such an advertisement has 
not, to my knowledge, been seen. 
While I address the Editors of The Veterinarian for the 
purpose of making the avowal they demand, I think I have a 
right, at the same time, to inquire who was so kind as to induce 
them to believe that I was the author of the offending puff? 
That they have taken upon themselves to attribute such a thing 
to me, merely because it was associated with my work, I will 
not believe : and I do not think I am more unreasonable in re¬ 
quiring their authority for doing so, than they in calling an 
author to account for the ignorance or impudence of his review¬ 
ers and publishers. 
I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
J. Stewart. 
The advertisement of a work is always, and justly, considered 
to be the composition of the author, or, at least, approved by him. 
He must be a strange kind of publisher (we hardly know by what 
name to designate him) who would put forth one which he well 
knew would be revolting to the author’s feelings, and which 
might for ever compromise his literary character; therefore 
Mr. Stewart's demand of the name of the informant, supposing 
that there had been one, is really absurd. We rejoice in Mr. 
Stewart’s disavowal of so disgraceful a puff, and were confident 
that he would disavow it.— Edit. 
