EDITORIAL. 
193 
the revelation came. A discovery was fnade, and of a most dis¬ 
appointing character—the text of the Act had been garbled, 
mutilated, emasculated, and the entire essence of the law elim¬ 
inated. It was a sad discovery. 
The bill had been mutilated. Who was the culprit ? When 
was the crime perpetrated ? All the interrogative adverbs in the 
dictionary were employed, but a negative answer followed each. 
Instead of regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in the 
State, the law now thoroughly ?4ttregulated it; instead of pro¬ 
tecting the qualified practitioner by proper conditions and restric¬ 
tions against the charlatan and pretender, it practically protected 
the ignorant pretender against the trained scientist, and threw 
the field open to whosoever might feel a desire to occupy it. 
If enthusiastic veterinarians, with the true interests of the sci¬ 
ence at heart, regretted the position, with its apparent reconcilia¬ 
tions of discords and ostensible legal sanctions of the right and 
the true, there was still a small body of men in the profession 
who failed to unite in the impressions and feelings of the rest. 
These were the “ liberal ” ones, who were not fond of placing rigid 
restraints on others, nor of wearing them themselves. They 
would concede that in this matter some few requirements should 
be respected, and the law not too palpably violated. A few 
easy rules would be well enough, a few easy conditions formu¬ 
lated, such as would not be irksome, and could be justified with¬ 
out going far out of one’s way. Thus if some poor fellow was 
known to practice without being registered,—a postal card notice 
would be sent to him; a postal card to make his equivocal posi¬ 
tion only the more public. He ought to take some pains to com¬ 
ply with the requirements of the law at least, by acknowledging 
the receipt of the postal card, and then it would be easy to u fix 
up” the non-registration matters. Freedom of registration; a 
grinding mill of certified credentials; easy going moderation— 
“ long life to quackery ! ” which, it had been thought, had received 
a death blow. Thoughts like these are naturally suggested by a 
contemplation £>f the result of the law, as enacted in 1886, or 
rather, as signed by the Governor. The mutilation had done its 
work. 
