272 
ON SHOEING. 
never purposely, for those feet for which Mr. T. most strongly 
recommends it. The professed objects of this system seem 
to be, to admit the alternate expansion and contraction of 
the foot, to negative the evil consequences of the nails, and, 
in short, to allow the due performance of the natural functions 
of this all-important member. Its pretensions are certainly 
great, and its objects excellent, and as such it demands a 
fair trial, a full investigation, and an impartial statement, as to 
its merits and demerits. Although the principles of this system 
have been before the profession for upwards of nine months, yet 
no one seems to have offered their remarks on the subject, with 
the exception of Mr. Basing, who, in his earnest zeal to defend 
Mr. Bracy Clark, has condemned Mr. Turner’s system in terms 
which would certainly materially cripple its rising reputation, if 
it did not altogether blast it in its bud, were his (Mr. Basing’s) 
observations founded on trial, or were they any thing more than 
unfounded assertions. Mr. Turner is accused of plucking off 
the feathers of another, and arraying himself in this stolen plu¬ 
mage ; or, to use a more professional metaphor, of contracting 
the credit of Mr. B. Clark, and expanding himself in this gen¬ 
tleman’s shoes; but really I cannot comprehend the nature of the 
offence which has called forth so severe an anathema, and has 
proved Mr. Turner to be actuated by meanness and quackery* 
It cannot be for stating that the foot expands, for this fact has 
long been acknowledged by veterinarians, and was probably dis¬ 
covered ages ago, if we may judge from the circumstance of the ex¬ 
pansion shoe having been in use in the days of Queen Elizabeth. 
But it must be either in discovering the chief error of shoeing, or 
else in providing a remedy. Now, in the written opinion of Mr. Clark, 
the chief error consists in fixing an inflexible ring of iron to the 
foot, and his remedy consequently has been the nailing on, if it 
may be so termed, a flexible shoe, one that expands to the foot. 
Whilst, in Mr. Turner’s belief, the error consists in fettering 
equally both sides of the foot, and his proposed alteration is, in 
fixing the nails on one side only. Thus, though these gentlemen 
agree as to the physiological fact, they equally differ both as to 
the disease and remedy. A shoe that would admit the natural 
play of the foot has long been a desideratum in the profession; and 
I have heard many veterinarians speak in praise of the theoretical 
principles of Mr. Clark’s shoe, who have yet condemned it on the 
practical grounds, that it tore away the crust, and was too com¬ 
plicated for common use. These objections do not apply to Mr. 
Turner’s system, as it is quite as simple as the common shoe, and 
cannot tear the crust, for there are no nails on the inner quarter to 
resist the expansion of the foot. The only objection which I think 
