REPLY TO DR. AtTSTlN PETERS* CRITICISM k 
555 
of the Association cannot allow the matter to stand without 
taking' some positive action. To act intelligently they must 
have both sides of the controversy before them, and I have 
consequently prepared this reply to Dr. Peters’ statements, 
which I shall send for publication to the two veterinary peri¬ 
odicals of the country. 
. wil1 agree with me, no doubt, that a person who is as¬ 
sailed in such language as appears in Dr. Peters’ contribu. 
tion, should, in common fairness, be accorded an opportunity 
to make a reply before he is condemned, even if there was 
nothing at stake but his individual reputation. And when, 
as in this case, there is, in addition to individual honor 
the reputation of a great Bureau of the National Govern¬ 
ment, a Bureau on the force of which the veterinary profes¬ 
sion has always been largely represented, how much greater 
leason is there for expecting the fullest hearing and the most 
unbiased treatment. 
Dr. Peters, in his paper, endeavored to give the impres¬ 
sion that he boldly made these charges in my presence, since 
he says that he is glad that he has deferred the matter until 
this year, “as it has given me [him] an opportunity to beard 
the lion in his den, so to speak, which I [he] always prefer 
to do, if the opportunity permits.” Instead of this being the 
case, he seized the opportunity when he knew I was una¬ 
voidably absent in Europe, representing the Secretary of Ag¬ 
riculture at the International Congress of Plygiene and Dem¬ 
ography at London, and at the International Agricultural 
Congress at The Hague, to make an attack, not only on the 
scientific work of the Bureau, but upon my honesty and 
truthfulness. This attack was the more cowardly since he 
also knew that Dr. Smith, who has charge of the investiga¬ 
tions, was not a member of the Association, and was, there¬ 
fore, not in a position to reply. 
It should be remarked, in this connection, that Dr. Peters 
has adopted three lines of attack. The first and chief one 
consists of personalities ; the second is the misrepresentation 
of our views, in order to secure plausible subjects for criti¬ 
cism : while the third and least prominent, is the attempt to 
