EDITORIAL. 
339 
We believe that “ A ” performed liis duty, but that it would 
have been wiser, if instead of acting upon his own sole responsi¬ 
bility, he had enlisted the aid of some better authority to press 
the prosecution against “ B.” We think it would have been 
better for him to have referred the case to the New York State 
Veterinary Society, which body, we suppose, has made provision 
for similar cases, since the passage of the law as last amended. 
If this is not so, it is high time that registered veterinarians and 
practitioners should know where to look for the proper authority 
to which to apply in similar cases. But perhaps these sugges¬ 
tions are lacking in pertinency, and it may also be that the pro¬ 
ceedings were sufficiently regular all through, or poor “ B ” 
would not have been in jail and exposed to prosecution. 
The important question now is, whether “ Castration is a part 
of veterinary surgery.” We do not hesitate to answer this in the 
affirmative, and we feel confident that if the learned judge, whose 
dictum is quoted, had known what castration involves, not alone 
the mere fact of the removal of the organs of generation, but all 
the various points connected with the operation, he would never 
have given the decision referred to. The subject is not a new 
one, nor is the question one of recent date. It has been consid¬ 
ered by the courts in Europe, and discussed before various com¬ 
missions, when matters pertaining to the regulation of veterinary 
practice, titles and claims have been treated, and we feel quite 
certain that, to-day, it is a point pretty well settled. To say that 
castration is not veterinary surgery is, it seems to us, equivalent 
to denying that obstetric practice is a branch of medical science, 
or orthopedy a part of human surgery; in fact, that any specialty 
of medical or surgical art is properly medicine or surgery. That 
“ B,” while inhabiting a country or a State where the practice of 
veterinary medicine is unrestrained and unprotected by statute 
should have a right to continue his business without molestation, 
may be right and proper “ according to law,” but if he works at 
his trade where the law imposes obligations in the way of qualifi¬ 
cations, and the practice is regulated by legislation, he undoubt¬ 
edly becomes amenable to the legal authorities. We believe that 
if “ A’s” case were carried up to an appellate court, it might 
