TO MR. DICK. 
691 
the time when Low was called to the horse. Mr. Dick’s account 
runs thus: “ He (Low) was called to visit the horse after he had 
been ill for sixteen days.” The evidence says, “ he was called 
on the 27th day of March.” Where Mr. Dick gets his calcula¬ 
tion of “ sixteen days” I don’t know or care ; but he should have 
corrected me by the words of the evidence. 
The next error is, having inserted the words Cf most approved.” 
These were not certainly used by the witness; they must have 
been marked in the quotation inadvertently, instead of, as origin¬ 
ally intended, a prefatory remark. But it is a matter of indif¬ 
ference whether the witness made use of them or not; the pre¬ 
sumption is, that he was to detail the remedies most approved 
in his experience, and the omission or insertion of the words, 
while they must have been understood, could have been of no 
moment whatever. 
Regarding my report of the third witness, my errors are equal¬ 
ly trifling and unimportant. Mr. Dick discovers a manifest dif¬ 
ference in the meaning of the sentences, “ horses in it” (the dis¬ 
ease), and “ horses affected with it.” I can discover none. Mr. 
Dick then, with breathless anxiety, leaps over two or three wit¬ 
nesses to get at his darling pupil, David Smith, where we have 
contracted hoofs most copiously dealt with for the first time. 
Mr. Dick acknowledges his pupil, according to my account, to 
have given “ opinions which are sufficiently absurd.” Do Mr. 
Dick’s corrections, or rather additions, improve him ? We shall 
see. Mr. Dick, observe, corroborates me so far as I go; but he 
has these sentences in addition: “ That contracted hoofs is no 
symptom of chords!” This is direct nonsense, and conveys no 
meaning whatever : he confounds symptom with cause. “ That 
said complaint does not generally follow contracted hoofs !” Any 
blacksmith in Christendom would have sworn to the same. 
“ That said horse was now’here disfigured in his appearance by 
cutting or otherwise.” Of equal importance to our subject as if 
he had sworn to the particular colour of the horse. The rest of 
the evidence merely goes to prove, that neither sleepy staggers 
nor strangles are the same as chords. There is a sentence which 
Mr. Dick omits : “ That the term chords is more properly called 
tetanus;” which, in common acceptation, means acute tetanus. 
Mr. Dick himself calls it chronic tetanus. Without a word of 
comment, I shall leave your readers to judge whether Mr. Dick 
has relieved Smith from or confirmed him more in his character 
of “ absurdity.” 
Having finished my strictures on the two reports, as furnished 
by Mr. Dick and myself, I would ask, what is the difference 
of the two in accuracy of statement? None at all worthy the 
