338 
EDITORIAL. 
which had been submitted. The opening of the accompanying 
envelope disclosed the name of Dr. B. Paquin, of Columbia, Mo., 
as the author, and, consequently, the prize has been accorded and 
delivered to that gentleman. In closing this transaction, and 
congratulating Dr. Paquin on his success, it gives us pleasuie to 
announce to our readers and the friends of the profession, that 
our offer is still open and available for the current year, with the 
same conditions as before, and we hope not only to receive a 
greater number of contributions for competition, but that we 
shall witness a still more extensive, complete and thorough dis¬ 
cussion of important topics, such as shall both reflect credit upon 
its authors and be of permanent value to the profession, besides 
being at least commensurate with the value of the prize. 
Is Castration Veterinary Surgery? —We have leceived a 
letter of inquiry, from a practitioner, which involves a question of 
vital importance to the veterinarian, especially at the piesent 
time, when appeals for legislative action for the regulation of the 
practice of veterinary medicine are pending in many of the States, 
and the protection of statutory law has been already, to a partial 
extent, secured in a few. 
The question has arisen incidentally, in connection with the 
announcement contained in a charge by a learned member of the 
judiciary, to the effect that, “ Cutting or castrating horses or colts 
is not veterinary surgery,” which is, of course, equivalent to say¬ 
ing that every man has a legal right to be a gelder, whether a 
veterinarian or not. The case was briefly this: 
u A” is a registered practitioner in the State of New lork; 
“B” is not, and has practiced castration; for this, “A” causes 
the arrest of “ B,” and commences proceedings, but on a second 
thought (which has proved to be an unlucky one), is induced to 
discontinue them, receiving a money consideration for doing so, 
and for payment of expenses incurred. “ B ” then sues “ A ” for 
/ malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, and it was in the 
trial of this case that the learned judge charged that “cutting or 
castrating horses or colts is not veterinary surgery.” The result 
of it all was a verdict against “A” for $250 damages, and “A” 
lays his grievance before us, and appeals for advice, beyond 
bestowing which our appellate jurisdiction extends not. 
