804 MR. J. turner’s REPLY TO MR. C. CLARK. 
following Mr. Clark line by line, as would be more becoming, 
but must begin by adverting to a most extraordinary sentence 
near the conclusion of his paper, in which however he does con¬ 
descend to allow that I do understand the necessity of this prin¬ 
ciple, alluding to the principle of elasticity or expansion of the 
foot, but with the utmost complacency washes I had avowed from 
whom I derived it, under the absurd notion that that is due to 
his uncle; and winds up by expressing, that in his mind the im¬ 
portant part of my statements consists in my unreserved advo¬ 
cacy of Mr. B. Clark’s doctrines respecting the foot. So complete 
is the delusion, that I know of nothing so w r ell to compare it to 
as his own system of shoeing. But this is Mr. Charles Clark’s 
version of the thing: now be kind enough to hear mine. 
Mr. Bracy Clark’s universal cry is the nails ! the nails!! they 
are ruination! ! and yet lie continues to use them , and what is 
most extraordinary towards the inside heel; but, by the aid of a 
joint at the fore part of the shoe, he states that they are render¬ 
ed harmless, and do not oppose the natural expansion of the 
heels. That this doctrine is fallacious has already been made 
manifest by the ingenious remarks of Mr. Joseph Goodwin, in 
his very interesting work on the various modes of shoeing prac¬ 
tised by different nations ; but this gentleman has left a chasm in 
his review which I shall attempt to fill, by pointing at one of the 
greatest errors of this high sounding Tablet Expansion Shoe 
when applied to practice, viz. the too close adaptation of the shoe 
to the hoof at the heels, occasioned by the nails approaching so 
near the heels, with the severe clenching requisite just at the 
weakest part of the foot, the inside quarter , in order that this 
complicated shoe may be retained in its situation. 
Now, Mr. Editor, let it be admitted, for argument sake, that 
the weight of the animal in quick motion is such as to overcome 
the restraint of these eight opposing points, and that in the 
scuffle, for I can call it by no other term, between superincum¬ 
bent weight, force, and resistance, the joint of the shoe does give 
a little, and concussion is moderated, let us consider the situation 
of the same hoof in the same shoe, while the animal is in a 
quiescent state, tied up by the head in his stall twenty-tw r o hours 
out of the twenty-four, and we shall find this jointed shoe of Mr. 
Bracy Clark’s to be a fetter with a vengeance, under the disguise 
of liberty. The weight of a horse alone, unaccompanied with 
action, is quite unequal to the restraint of the nails, and conse¬ 
quently the joint at the toe of the shoe becomes a nullity, leaving 
the heels exposed to severe partial pressure, as with the common 
shoe. Contraction of the foot being principally engendered in 
the stable, this is the period of danger, although- exertion after- 
