64 
D. E. SALMON. 
Dr. Gadsden was not willing to leave the decision of this 
question to veterinarians, but prepared a ease, like a lawyer would 
prepare a brief, giving those observations which apparently up¬ 
held his theory and suppressing those which demonstrated that 
the contrary was true. He even wrote to such men as Williams, 
McCall and Stevenson, who have long been known as supporters 
of this strange proposition, for their views, and in that way was 
able to show that nearly all the professional men whom he had 
heard from were believers in the necessity of contact with the 
living diseased animal. 
With this one-sided paper, the doctor went to the Kansas 
City convention of stock-growers to elucidate, for the benefit of 
these non-professional men, one of the most important questions 
to be considered in adopting measures for the eradication of the 
most insidious of all animal plagues. His object was not to show 
that the work now done was not sufficiently thorough and to gain 
support for more stringent measures, but on the conti ary he 
desired to prove that it was too thorough and that a part of it 
should be left undone. It is seldom that one finds a professional 
man occupying such a position, for usually they prefer to err on 
the safe side and carry out the most stringent measures that are 
possible. 
As it happened, however, the programme of this convention had 
been prepared some weeks in advance of the meeting, the parties 
who were to read papers were invited to prepare them on partic¬ 
ular subjects, and no other papers whatever were accepted. Dr. 
Gadsden’s paper was ruled out on this account, and he was advised 
to read it at the meeting of veterinarians and State Live Stock 
Sanitary Boards, then in progress, where it could be intelligently 
discussed. 
Apparently not pleased by this decision, the doctor sent his 
paper to various newspapers with a letter, to some parts of which 
I must take exceptions. “ I was very much surprised,” he says, 
“ to find the convention run by a certain clique in the interests 
of the Bureau of Animal Industry.” I would like to ask if that 
is not a remarkable statement in view of the fact that the most 
infportant resolution passed by that convention favored legislation 
