478 MR. HALES IN REPLY TO MR. CARTWRIGHT. 
sional man, or the mere pride of authorship, the pages of your 
Journal would very rarely have been stained with the emanations 
of my pen; but when I saw that the elite of the profession— 
those whose communications ought to be the pride and ornament 
of a veterinary journal, have either never lent a helping hand, or, 
having held out the hand of promise in the beginning, “ have 
broke it to the hope” by withdrawing their valuable support, I 
considered it a duty to lend my feeble aid, as it would be an 
indelible disgrace to our calling to give the world the opportu¬ 
nity of saying, that the veterinary profession could not, or would 
not, support one periodical devoted to its interests, and anxious 
to uphold the respectability and character of the veterinary sur¬ 
geon. Let the stars of the profession come forth (and I could 
name a glorious constellation) ; let the numbers of The Veteri¬ 
narian teem with the fruits of their scientific knowledge and 
practical experience, then would I rejoice to throw down my puny 
pen, and willingly and gladly “ be taught by better men.” 
Mr. Cartwright asks me, why I made no remarks on the sub¬ 
ject of the trial when I sent the report to The Veterinarian ? 
The answer is easy : I acted merely as a reporter ; my name did 
not appear to the publication, nor is there one word of my own 
throughout the report. 
He also wishes to know, why I thought him wrong for pub¬ 
lishing “ such a letter” in the newspaper? To this I reply, that 
I do not consider a country newspaper, seen but by few veteri¬ 
narians, as the proper place for such a discussion, especially 
when we have a monthly journal expressly intended for the con¬ 
sideration of veterinary subjects; and more particularly as Mr. C. 
had been writing a great deal in The Veterinarian before 
the appearance of his letter in the Shrewsbury paper. 
Mr. C. next alludes to my case of mistaken cataract, and says 
that he should at once have known that it was not cataract. He 
then tells us how he should have known it—because there was in¬ 
flammation existing at the same time. Now, if he has never seen 
inflammation and small cataract existing in the horse’s eye at the 
same time, I can assure him that this phenomenon may be wit¬ 
nessed in the eyes of numbers of horses going blind with the spe¬ 
cific ophthalmia. He also remarks, that the slight motion in the 
speck, that was fancied to be seen on the second examination, 
would have told him it was not a cataract: perhaps it would; 
but I wanted not his help then, for that very circumstance led 
me immediately to suspect that my opinion of the previous day 
was an erroneous one; and I have so stated it in giving an 
account of the case. 
My opinion that every hernia is unsoundness is next assailed. 
Several veterinary surgeons of my acquaintance, whose opinions 
