248 TRANSLATIONS FROM CONTINFNTAL JOURNALS. 
have their validity, wliich equivalents help to make up ? At 
all events, it seems impossible tliat a malady which has pro¬ 
duced the coAvpox should not contain the principle or the 
germ of it. But our idea of it does not go beyond tlie fact 
tliat the cowpox arose from the inoculation, as we have said. 
We are careful not to infer that the cow always receives it 
from the horse. We believe, on the contrary, that it arises 
spontaneously in the cow, as in its natural source. There are 
now too many examples of the cowpox in cows who have 
never been brought in contact either directly or indirectly 
with horses, for us to renounee this in favour of a rival theorv. 
Finally, the horse and cow may both have the faculty of 
engendering the cowpox. This to us appears likely, and the 
lesson which this observation has given us tends to this, only 
the cow has the advantage of the greater notoriety. This 
makes us regret that M. Sarrans, who was on the spot of the 
epizootic, and M. Lafosse, though he w^as not on the spot, did 
not benefit by all the advantages of this fortunate opportunity 
to multiply the inoeulations. Nothing throws more light on 
an extraordinary fact than the repetition of the same fact. 
No doubt all the negative facts in the world are powerless 
when compared with one positive fact; one which has been Avell 
examined and well authenticated. But when an event is rare 
and contradictory, one has always to fear that the senses 
might have been taken off their guard : the mind conse¬ 
quently demands new facts to confirm them. 
To convince the eye as well as the mind, !M. Lafosse has 
not contented himself by describing the pustules obtained by 
the equine inoculation, ljut he has caused them to be repre¬ 
sented by drawings from the horse as well as the cow, by which 
jneans they may be seen in their various stages of develop¬ 
ment, from their first appearance to their desiccation. Such, 
gentlemen, is the memoir of the commission of Toulouse. If 
we have not been so explicit as could be wished, we know that 
nothing has been omitted to throw light on a fact which, 
though still contested, claims to be allowed to take its place 
in science. 
We have the honour, gentlemen, to propose that an 
Academic letter be written and sent to MM. Cavrel and 
Lafosse as a testimonial of our satisfaction for their able 
explanation. 
21. II. Bouley .—One fact has struck me in this memoir 
from Toulouse, and in tlie report of M. Bousquet, viz., 
the nature of the malady derived from the horse and 
the cow, that this malady is not the same as that to 
wdiich the origin of co\vpox has hitherto been attributed. 
