516 
VETERINARY OBSTETRICS. 
favour of publishing in your next. For I apprehend that 
leaving his offensive effusion uncontradicted, and to the silent 
contempt it deserves, would have the effect of only magnifying 
his own preposterous pretensions, as well as encouraging his 
unjustifiable attempts in aspersing and depreciating others, 
and thus lead him to imagine that he had successfully palmed 
on the profession conclusions which are utterly untenable and 
unwarranted. 
I remain. Gentlemen, 
Respectfully yours, 
Andrew Calley. 
To the 'Editors of 4 The Veterinarian 
Kirkton-by-Burxtislaxd ; July 1, 1560. 
Mr. Gamgee, in his accompanying note to the Editors of 
the Veterinarian , has solicited the insertion in their periodical 
of what he has been pleased to call an “ Essay on Veterinary 
Obstetrics/ 5 which originally appeared in the North British 
Agriculturist , on the grounds, as he says, that it contains a 
very satisfactory refutation of all that has been said to injure 
my (his) professional reputation/’ and he enforces his appeal 
to editorial sympathy for publishing his paper, which he 
volunteered to read before the West of Scotland Veterinary 
Medical Association , along with the discussion which followed; 
which he states was drawn up by a reporter/ 5 who, he how¬ 
ever omits to mention, was employed by himself, and not 
by official authority ; the report being, as I learn, unauthor¬ 
ised, and refers to much which not a few of the members who 
attended the meeting, I know, deny and disclaim. 
Had the Editors been solely guided by their own feelings, to 
(t scorn (using his own phraseology) the attempt of some to 
raise themselves bv the detraction of others/’ his c.ommuni- 
cation, I readily believe, would not have been honoured with 
a place in their journal; but, influenced by a strong sense of 
justice and impartiality, they did not refuse him the opportu¬ 
nity he sought in their pages, to show how effectually, out 
of his own mouth, he convicts himself of the very charge he 
prefers against others, viz., of being actuated by improper 
motives, from a reckless spirit of detraction and self-glorifica¬ 
tion. 
My next complaint against Mr. Gamgee is his stigma¬ 
tising my position, as being the author of the narrative of the 
case, as one “ extremely objectionable/ 5 on the ground that 
his foes, who dared not confront him, used me as an instru¬ 
ment, incapable of judging at all, in order, if possible, (i to 
