384 
EDITORIAL. 
copy of this number, and each subscriber should see that his 
neighboring fellow-practitioner is equally fortunate with him¬ 
self in that he does not miss this opportunity to reap the benefits 
to be derived from the enterprise of the Review. 
SCIENTIFIC CHRONICLES. 
Preventive Inoculations in Contagious Pleuro-Pneu- 
monia—Comparative Test. —It has been well proven by the 
United States that the only way to clear a country, no matter 
how great, from the disastrous presence of pleuro-pneumonia, 
was the general slaughter of all diseased, suspected, and con¬ 
taminated animals. And the results obtained by England and 
by Austria in applying the same measure are no doubt due to 
the example set by the United States. In some parts of the 
Continent, however, and probably in P A rance more than in any 
others, the authorities seem to be afraid of the severity of such 
measures, and are yet having recourse to inoculation as a means 
of control. 
After the discovery made by Prof. Arloing of the microbe 
which he named th ^.pneumo-bacillus liqnefctciens , and which we 
made our readers familiar with in previous numbers of the 
Review, it was to be expected that the relations of that bacillus 
to the development of the disease, though denied by so many 
such as Nocard, Bittdel and others—it was, we said, to be ex¬ 
pected that the next step would be to test the value of cultures 
of the bacillus for inoculations. And of course this step was 
soon made. 
But for years back there has been in Europe another process 
of inoculation—the one with which many of our American con¬ 
freres are familiar; it is the inoculation of Willems. Which of 
the two was the better—which could be recommended bytlie Gov¬ 
ernment ? To compare the Willems and the Arloing methods a 
large series of experiments were made lately at Pouilly-le-Eort, 
already known for the experiments made by Pasteur years ago. 
These experiments were made with the effect of definitely 
deciding their comparative value,—both having been tried 
